Jeetnarain Mishra and 3 Others Vs State of Up and Another — Allahabad HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

Jeetnarain Mishra and 3 Others Vs State of Up and Another — Allahabad HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Notices (Annexure No. 2) issued by the trial court to the applicants/accused quashed; prayer to quash the charge sheet refused as premature; trial court directed to ensure the matter proceeds in accordance with law; copy of the order to be communicated to the District & Sessions Judge, Prayagraj.

Issue for consideration

Whether the notices (Annexure No. 2) issued by the trial court to the applicants/accused, without any cognizance or summoning order having been passed, were issued in an illegal manner and liable to be quashed. +1 more

Court's answer

The Criminal Procedure Code does not prescribe any procedure requiring that, after receipt of a charge-sheet, notice has to be issued to the accused before cognizance is taken.

Ratio / Principle

The notices (Annexure No. 2) issued by the trial court to the applicants/accused were issued in an illegal manner and are hereby quashed; the trial court shall ensure that the matter proceeds in accordance with law.

Key takeaways

Since no cognizance of the matter has been taken so far, the prayer for quashing of the charge sheet is premature and is refused.ratio¶10

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Raj Beer Singh, J.) — Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. by Jeetnarain Mishra and 3 Others seeking quashing of the charge sheet dated 26.10.2020 and summoning order dated 13.11.2023 in Case Crime No. 0492 of 2020 (State vs. Vijay Mishra and others) under Sections 188, 269 and 270 I.P.C., P.S. Handia, District Prayagraj; in substance the notices (Annexure No. 2) issued by the trial court were challenged. The trial court's report stated that neither cognizance nor any summoning order had been passed, yet its order sheet showed an order dated 12.10.2023 for issuance of notice to the accused. Held: the Criminal Procedure Code prescribes no procedure for issuing notice to the accused after receipt of the charge-sheet and before taking of cognizance; the notices were issued in an illegal manner and were quashed. The prayer to quash the charge sheet was premature, no cognizance having been taken, and was refused. Application disposed of; copy of the order to be communicated to the District & Sessions Judge, Prayagraj.

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:125783

Court No. - 76

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2670 of 2024

Applicant :- Jeetnarain Mishra And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sarveshwari Prasad,Vineet Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

Heard Sri Pranvesh, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Vineet Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material brought on record.

This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the charge sheet dated 26.10.2020 and summoning order dated 13.11.2023, of Case Crime No. 0492 of 2020 (State vs. Vijay Mishra and others), under Sections - 188, 269 and 270 I.P.C., Police Station - Handia, District - Prayagraj.

Perusal of record shows that impugned charge sheet was submitted against applicants on 26.10.2020. From the order sheet of trial court, it appears that there was no proper cognizance or summoning order but despite that the notices (Annexure No.2) were being issued to the applicants-accused by the court of Additional Civil Judge/J.D., Court No. 21. In fact, the said notices (Annexure No. 2) are being challenged in the present application under Section - 482 Cr.P.C. A report was sought from the trial court concerned as to on which date cognizance has been taken and summoning order has been

passed and it appears that meanwhile said case was transferred to the court of Special Magistrate / M.P./M.L.A., Prayagraj. In the report submitted by the said court, it has been stated that the court has neither taken cognizance of the matter so far nor any summoning order has been passed. Thus, it is apparent that the notices (Annexure No. 2) were issued to the applicants in illegal manner. Though, in the above report of the trial court, it has been mentioned that no cognizance / summoning order has been passed so far but perusal of the order-sheet of trial court clearly shows that on 12.10.2023 order was passed by the trial court for issuance of notice to the accused persons/ applicants. The Criminal Procedure Code does not prescribe any such procedure that after receipt of charge-sheet, notice has to be issued to the accused before taking cognizance.

In view of aforesaid, the notices (Annexure No.2) issued by the trial court to the applicants / accused are hereby quashed. The trial court shall ensure that the matter is proceeded in accordance with law. So far the prayer for quashing of chargesheet is concerned, as no cognizance of the matter has been taken so far, thus the said prayer is premature, hence refused.

The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of in above terms.

A copy of this order shall be communicated to the District & Sessions Judge, Prayagraj.

Order Date :- 5.8.2024 S Rawat

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