Remanded

Himanshu Kumar and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC22 Jul 2024A482/19023/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court quashed a mechanical summoning order passed on a printed proforma without applying judicial mind, despite the underlying criminal charge involving sections related to dowry, cruelty, and harassment.

What did the court decide?

Impugned summoning order dated 02.09.2019 quashed and matter remitted to lower court for fresh cognizance and summoning order.

Himanshu Kumar and 5 Others vs State of U.P. and… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:115969

¶2

Court No. - 76

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19023 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Himanshu Kumar And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Syed Mohammed Jafer Husain Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed in Court today, is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material brought on record.

¶8

This application under Section - 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred for quashing of the entire proceedings, including charge-sheet dated 17.07.2019 as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 02.09.2019, of Criminal Case No. 1178 of 2019 (State vs. Himanshu Kumar and Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 132 of 2019, under Sections - 498-A, 323, 504 I.P.C. and 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station - Sarnath, District - Varanasi, pending before the court of Judicial Magistrate-II, Varanasi.

¶9

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are innocent and no prima facie case is made out against them. Applicant no.2 is brother-in-law and applicant no.5 and 6 are uncle-in-law and his wife and they have absolutely no concern with the matrimonial life of informant. In fact after marriage of informant with applicant no.1, they have resided in city whereas remaining applicants were residing in their village. It has further been submitted that impugned cognizance and summoning order has been passed on a printed proforma by merely filling the details

¶10

of case like case number, crime number and police station etc. in the proforma, which clearly shows that this order has been passed in a mechanical manner without application of judicial mind. Even the names of the accused persons have not been mentioned in the summoning order and thus, the impugned cognizance and summoning order is not sustainable.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. submits that a prima-facie case is made out against the applicants but it could not be disputed that impugned summoning order has been passed on a printed proforma by filling details of the case.

¶12

I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

¶13

Perusal of record shows that the impugned cognizance and summoning order dated 02.09.2019 has been passed on a printed proforma and merely details of case like Sections, Police Station, Crime Number and Next Date of Listing were filled in the said proforma. Even the names of the accused persons have not been mentioned in the said summoning order. It is well settled that summoning order has to be passed after considering relevant material and applying judicial mind. In the instant case, it is apparent that the impugned order has been passed in a mechanical way without applying judicial mind.

¶14

It may be stated that there are hundreds of decisions of this Court to the effect that the summoning order cannot be passed on a printed proforma by merely filling in the details of the case, rather the summoning order must be passed by applying judicial mind. It is a matter of concern that despite repeated directions of this Court, the summoning orders are being passed by some courts on printed proformas. To mention a few cases, reference may be made to the

¶15

case of Ankit Vs. State of U.P. J.I.C. 2010 (1) 432, Basasudin and others Vs. State of U.P. 2011 (1) JIC, 335 All, Abdul Rashid and others Vs. State of U.P. 2010 (3) JIC, 7661 All, Surender Kumar & others Vs. State of U.P. 2021 (7) ADJ 61, Virendra Kumar Bajpai Vs. State of U.P. (Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No.7972/2022) and Ram Kewal Vs. State of U.P. 2024:AHCLKO:5736 . Summoning of a person as accused is a serious matter and thus, it must reflect the application of judicial mind. The practice of passing summoning orders on printed proforma by merely filling the details of the case must be stopped forthwith.

¶16

In view of the aforesaid, the impugned summoning order dated 02.09.2019, passed by the Judicial Magistrate-II, Varanasi, is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the court concerned to pass the order on cognizance and summoning afresh expeditiously in accordance with law.

¶17

With the aforesaid observations, the instant application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is finally disposed of.

¶18

Order Date :- 22.7.2024 S Rawat

¶19

Digitally signed by :- SHOBHIT RAWAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Himanshu Kumar and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Himanshu Kumar and 5 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

Harnam Singh vs State of U.P.

Akhilesh Kumar Mishra and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Kamaran Khan and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd Adil and 2 Others vs State of Up and Another

Tejpal Verma and 4 Others vs State of Up and Another

Suresh Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another