Disposed

Smt Premlata and 4 Others v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC2 Jul 2024A482/45/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court quashed a Section 204 Cr.P.C. order as it was passed without any reasoning, citing Supreme Court precedents requiring due application of mind. In the absence of the respondent's appearance, the matter was remitted to the trial court to pass a fresh reasoned order.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order under Section 204 Cr.P.C. set aside; matter remitted to trial court to pass fresh order.

Smt Premlata and 4 Others vs State of Up and… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:110665

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 45 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Smt Premlata And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Jatan Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

¶6

The impugned order dated 31.05.2018 which is passed under Section 204 I.P.C. whereby the applicants are summoned to face trial for offence under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. is reproduced hereinafter:-

¶7

"31/05/2018

¶8

पतत्रावलली पपेश हहई। वत्राददिनली मय दवदत्रान अधधिवकत्रा उपससस्थित।

¶9

वत्राददिनली कपे दवदत्रान , अधधिवकत्रा ककी बहस ससंजत्रान ससुनली एवसं पतत्रावलली कत्रा अवललोकन दकयत्रा।

¶10

वत्राददिनली शलीमतली पपूनम दिपेवली दत् र ात्रा पररवत्रादिपत मम अदभिकधस्थित घटनत्रा कपे ससंदिभिर मम दवपकलीगण शलीमतली पपेमलतत्रा , बलोद पकत्राश , यलोगपेश पदिम धससंह एवसं जगदिलीश कलो असंतगरत धित् र ात्रा 420,323,354,504,506 भित्रा०दिसं०ससं० मम तलब कर दिसणण्डित दकयपे जत्रानपे ककी यत्राचनत्रा ककी गई हहै।

¶11

वत्राददिनली दत् र ात्रा पररवत्रादिपत कपे समस्थिरन मम सवसंय कलो धित् र ात्रा 200 दिसं०प०ससं० कपे तहत परलीदकत करत्रायत्रा गयत्रा हहै तस्थित्रा धित् र ात्रा 202 दिसं०प०ससं० अन्तगरत पली०ण्डिब्लपू० 1 वलीरली धससंह कलो परलीदकत करत्रायत्रा गयत्रा हहै तस्थित्रा अदभिलपेखलीय सत्राक्ष्य कपे रूप मम वररष्ठ पसुधलस अधिलीकक आगरत्रा कलो ददियपे गयपे पत्रास्थिरनत्रापत ककी फलोटलो पदत व ण्डित्राक रधजसटटली रसलीदि आददि दित्राधखल ककी गयली हह।

¶12

वत्राददिनली दत् र ात्रा पररवत्रादिपत मम दकयपे गयपे कस्थिननों एवसं पसतसुत दकयपे गयपे सत्राक्ष्यनों कपे अवललोकन कपे पश्चत्रात मपेरली रत्राय मम दवपकलीगण शलीमतली पपेमलतत्रा , बलोद पकत्राश , यलोगपेश पदिम धससंह एवसं जगदिलीश कपे दत् र ात्रा अन्तगरत धित् र ात्रा 323,504,506 भित्रा०दिसं०ससं० कत्रा अपरत्राधि पस्थिम दृष्टयत्रा कत् र ारत दकयत्रा जत्रानत्रा पतलीत हलोतत्रा हहै तस्थित्रा पररवत्रादि मम असंदकत शपेष धित् र ात्राओ कपे अन्तगरत अपरत्राधि मम दवपकलीगण कलो तलब करनपे हपेतसु पररवत्राददियत्रा ककी ओर सपे कलोई सुसंगत सत्राक्ष्य पतत्रावलली पर स दित्राधखल नहहीं दकयत्रा गयत्रा हहै। अततः शपेष धित् र ात्राओ कपे तहत दवपकलीगण कलो तलब करनपे हपेतसु पस्थिम दृष्टयत्रा पयत् र ाप सत्राक्ष्य उपलब्धि नहहीं हहै। तदिनुत् स र ा दवपकलीगण शलीमतली पपेमलतत्रा , बलोद पकत्राश , यलोगपेश पदिम धससंह एवसं जगदिलीश उपरलोक धित् र ात्रा कपे तहत दवचत् र ाण हपेतसु तलब दकयपे जत्रानपे यलोग्य हहै।

¶13

आदिेशप

¶14

दवपकलीगण शलीमतली पपेमलतत्रा , बलोद पकत्राश , यलोगपेश पदिम धससंह एवसं जगदिलीश कलो धित् र ात्रा 323,504,506 भित्रा०दिसं०ससं०

¶15

कपे अन्तगरत अपरत्राधि मम दवचत् र ाण हपेतसु जररयपे समन तलब दकयत्रा जत्रातत्रा हहै। वत्राददिनली वत्रासंदछित पहैरवली अन्दिर 07 ददिवस दित्राधखल करम। पतत्रावलली वत्रासतपे हत्राधजरली ददिनत्रासंक 28/07/2019 कलो पपेश हलो।"

¶16

The aforesaid impugned order does not even reflect the fact of the case, the contents of the complaint, statement of the complainant recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. There is no event of facts of case as well as there is no reason assigned that there are sufficient material to proceed against the applicants. The aforesaid order is absolutely in teeth of the judgement passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Lalankumar Singh and others Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2022) SCC OnLine 1383 that impugned order does not survive in the eyes of law and relevant part thereof are reproduced hereinafter :-

¶17

"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:

¶18

"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.

¶19

52. 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.

¶20

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

¶21

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.""

¶22

In the aforesaid circumstances, the notice was issued to the opposite party no.2 and is being served upon to the relatives of the opposite party no.2 at the given address. However, till date no one has appeared.

¶23

The Court is of the considered opinion that the aforesaid order is bereft by reasoning, therefore, is liable to be set aside.

¶24

However, considering that no one has appeared on behalf of the opposite party no.2, therefore, in the interest of justice, the impugned order is remitted back to learned trial court to pass a fresh order.

¶25

Accordingly, application is disposed of with aforesaid observation.

¶26

Order Date :- 8.7.2024 Jitendra

¶27

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

Smt Premlata and 4 Others v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Premlata and 4 Others v. State of Up 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Kuldeep Singh vs State of Up and Another

Vimal Kumar vs State of Up and 3 Others

Vimal Kumar vs State of Up and 3 Others

Rajeev Kumar vs State of Up and Another

Anuj Gupta and Others vs State of Up Others

Prem Narayan Sharma @ Guddu vs State of Up