Remanded

Sanjeev Kumar Gautam and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC26 Sept 2024A482/13486/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside an unreasoned summoning order and non-bailable warrant issued by the trial court under Sections 420, 406, and 323 IPC. The applicant successfully invoked inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, modifying the trial court's duty to state reasons under Section 204 CrPC and remanding the matter for a fresh order.

What did the court decide?

Impugned summoning order and non-bailable warrant set aside; matter remitted to Trial Court to pass fresh order within three months.

Sanjeev Kumar Gautam and 2 Others vs State… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:157484

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13486 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Sanjeev Kumar Gautam And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Jahangir Haider,Rajiv Kumar Mishra,Sandeep Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Sandeep Singh, learned counsel for applicants and perused the record. 2. This Court has again encountered with an unreasoned impugned summoning order wherein neither facts nor date of occurrence nor contents of complaint nor contents of statements recorded are mentioned and still applicants are summoned. For reference, impugned order dated 16.11.2023 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Vth, Ghaziabad, is reproduced hereinafter-:

¶7

“पतत्रावलली आददेश हदेततु पदेश हहई। तलबली कदे बबन्दतु पर पररवत्रादली कदे बवदत्रान अधधिवकत्रा कक पपूवर सतुनत्रा जत्रा चतुकत्रा हहै। आज पतत्रावलली कत्रा सम्यक अवलककन बकयत्रा।

¶8

पररवत्रादली ककी ओर सदे बवपकलीगण कक पररवत्राद पत मम वबणरत धित् र ात्राओओं मम बवचत् र ाण हदेततु तलब बकयदे जत्रानदे हदेततु यकधजत बकयत्रा गयत्रा हहै।

¶9

पररवत्रादली दत् र ात्रा पररवत्राद कदे कथननों कदे समथरन मम स्वयओं कक धित् र ात्रा 200 दओं०प्र०सओं० व सत्राकली सओंजलीव बहकरत्रा कक धित् र ात्रा 202 दओं०प्र०सओं० कदे अन्तगरत परलीबकत करत्रायत्रा हहै तथत्रा अबभिलदेखलीय सत्राक्ष्य कदे रूप मम स्वयओं कत्रा शपथ पत, आधित् र ा कत् र ार आबद ककी छत्रायत्राप्रबतयत्राओं दत्राधखल ककी गयली हहै।

¶10

पररवत्रादली कदे पररवत्राद पत, बयत्रान धित् र ात्रा 200 व 202 दओं०प्र०सओं० व उसककी ओर सदे दत्राधखल अबभिलदेखलीय सत्राक्ष्य कदे अवलककन सदे बवपकलीगण कक धित् र ात्रा 323,504,506,420,406 भित्रा०द०सओं० कदे अन्तगरत तलब बकयदे जत्रानदे कत्रा प्रथमदृष्टयत्रा आधित् र ा पत्रायत्रा जत्रातत्रा हहै।

¶11

आददेश

¶12

अबभियतुकगण सओंजलीव कतुमत् र ा गगौतम, बत्राबपूरत्राम व सओंतकष कतुमत् र ा गगौतम कक धित् र ात्रा

¶13

323,504,506,420,406 भित्रा०व०सओं० कदे अन्तगरत बवचत् र ाण हदेततु तलब बकयत्रा जत्रातत्रा हहै। पररवत्रादली अबभियतुकगण ककी उपसस्थबत हदेततु आवश्यक पहैरवली अओंदर सत्रात बदन करम। बत्राद पहैरवली अबभियतुकगण कक सम्मन जत् र ाली हक। पतत्रावलली अबग्रिम आददेश हदेततु बदनत्राओंक 21/12/23 कक पदेश हक। पररवत्रादली सत्राक्ष्य सपूचली दत्राधखल करम।"

¶14

This Court has already taken a serious note of similar summoning order passed in the case of Bangali Rathore and 3 others vs. State of U.P. and another, 2024:AHC:118989.

¶15

A judgment of Supreme Court in Lalankumar Singh and another vs. State of Maharashtra, 2022 SCC Online SC 1383 is relevant on this issue and its relevant paragraphs are mentioned below -:

¶16

"38. The order of issuance of process is not an empty formality. The Magistrate is required to apply his mind as to whether sufficient ground for proceeding exists in the case or not. The formation of such an opinion is required to be stated in the order itself. The order is liable to be set aside if no reasons are given therein while coming to the conclusion that there is a prima facie case against the accused. No doubt, that the order need not contain detailed reasons. A reference in this respect could be made to the judgment of this Court in the case of Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2015) 4 SCC 609 which reads thus:

¶17

"51. On the other hand, Section 204 of the Code deals with the issue of process, if in the opinion of the Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence, there is sufficient ground for proceeding. This section relates to commencement of a criminal proceeding. If the Magistrate taking cognizance of a case (it may be the Magistrate receiving the complaint or to whom it has been transferred under Section 192), upon a consideration of the materials before him (i.e. the complaint, examination of the complainant and his witnesses, if present, or report of inquiry, if any), thinks that there is a prima facie case for proceeding in respect of an offence, he shall issue process against the accused.

¶18

A wide discretion has been given as to grant or refusal of process and it must be judicially exercised. A person ought not to be dragged into court merely because a complaint has been filed. If a prima facie case has been made out, the Magistrate ought to issue process and it cannot be refused merely because he thinks that it is unlikely to result in a conviction.

¶19

However, the words "sufficient ground for proceeding" appearing in Section 204

¶20

are of immense importance. It is these words which amply suggest that an opinion is to be formed only after due application of mind that there is sufficient basis for proceeding against the said accused and formation of such an opinion is to be stated in the order itself. The order is liable to be set aside if no reason is given therein while coming to the conclusion that there is prima facie case against the accused, though the order need not contain detailed reasons. A fortiori, the order would be bad in law if the reason given turns out to be ex facie incorrect."

¶21

In view of above discussion, I find that it is a fit case where inherent powers of this Court can be exercised.

¶22

Accordingly, impugned summoning order dated 16.11.2023 as well as nonbailable warrant dated 06.02.2024 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Vth, Ghaziabad in Complaint Case No. 4825 of 2023 (Smt. Shakuntala vs. Sanjeev Kumar Gautam), under Sections 420, 406, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Sahibabad, District Ghaziabad, is hereby set aside. Matter is remitted back to Trial Court concerned to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after hearing complainant only as well as taking note of judgments passed by Supreme Court in Lalankumar Singh (supara) and Mohammad Wajid and another vs. State of U.P. and others, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 951, expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from today, if there is no legal impediment.

¶23

With aforesaid observations/ directions, the application is disposed of.

¶24

A copy of this order be sent to Hon'ble Administrative Judge, Ghaziabad in regard to nature of order passed by concerned Officer.

¶25

Registrar (Compliance) to take steps.

¶26

Order Date :- 26.9.2024 AK

¶27

Digitally signed by :- AWADESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sanjeev Kumar Gautam and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjeev Kumar Gautam and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Keshav Prasad Singh and 5 Others vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Jitendra Pratap Singh vs State of Up and 6 Others

Smt Mamta @ Mamta Dagar vs State of U.P. and Another

Satpal Singh and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Himanshu Awasthi and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Subhash Chandra Chauhan and Another vs State of U.P. and Another