Quashed

Yogendra Kumar Alias Yogendra Sharma v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC5 Aug 2024A482/9470/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge direction held that impugned orders under Section 203 Cr.P.C. which fail to record facts, application of mind, or reasons are illegal. It quashed two such orders and remitted the matter to the concerned Magistrate for fresh consideration after hearing the complainant.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and Section 203 Cr.P.C. are set aside. Matters are remitted to the learned Trial Court to pass fresh orders after hearing the complainant.

Yogendra Kumar Alias Yogendra Sharma vs State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:125428

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9470 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Yogendra Kumar Alias Yogendra Sharma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dharmendra Pratap Singh,Jitendra Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Dharmendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.

¶7

This is another example where the learned Magistrate has not applied his application of mind and has passed impugned order under Section 203 Cr.P.C. by closing his eyes also. The impugned order is reproduced hereinafter :-

¶8

28.8.2023 "ददिनननांक

¶9

"पतनवलली आदिदेश हदेततु पदेश हहई। तलबली कदे दबन्दितु पर पररवनदिली कदे दवदनन अधधिवकन कको पपूवर सतुनन जन चतुकन हहै आज पतनवलली कन सम्यक अवलकोकन दकयन।

¶10

पररवनदिली ककी ओर सदे दवपकलीगण कको पररवनदि पत मम वदणरत धिनरनओनां मम दवचनरण हदेततु तलब दकयदे जननदे हदेततु यकोधजत दकयन गयन हहै।

¶11

पररवनदिली दनरन पररवनदि कदे कथननों कदे समथरन मम स्वयनां कको धिनरन 200 दिनां०प्र०सनां० व सनकलीगण अन प ू गकोयल व शदेखर कको धिनरन 202 दिनां०प्र०सनां० कदे अन्तगरत परलीदकत करनयन हहै तथन अदभिलदेखलीय सनक्ष्य कदे रूप मम स्वयनां कन शपथ पत , आधिनर कनरर आददि ककी छनयनप्रदतयननां दिनधखल ककी गयली हहै।

¶12

सतुनन तथन पतनवलली कन अवलकोकन दकयन।

¶13

पररवनदिली कदे पररवनदि पत, बयनन धिनरन 200 व 202 दिनां०प्र०सनां० व उसककी ओर सदे

¶14

दिनधखल अदभिलदेखलीय सनक्ष्य कदे अवलकोकन सदे दवपकली कको धिनरन 406,420, भिन०दि०सनां० कदे अन्तगरत तलब दकयदे जननदे कन प्रथमदृष्टयन आधिनर पनयन जनतन हहै।

¶15

आदिदेश

¶16

अदभियतुक यकोगदेन्द्र कतुमनर कको धिनरन 406, 420 भिन०दि०सनां० कदे अन्तगरत दवचनरण हदेततु तलब दकयन जनतन हहै। पररवनदिली अदभियतुक ककी उपसस्थदत हदेततु आवश्यक पहैरवली अनांदिर सनत ददिन करम। बनदि पहैरवली अदभियतुक कको सम्मन जनरली हको। पतनवलली अदग्रिम आदिदेश हदेततु ददिनननांक 15.09.2023 कको पदेश हको। पररवनदिली सनक्ष्य सपूचली दिनधखल करम।"

¶17

From bare perusal of impugned order, it would be clear that even facts of case, brief contents of statement of complainant and witnesses are not mentioned. The impugned order in its present form is absolutely illegal and is liable to be set aside.

¶18

The Court has already taken a serious note of similar summoning order passed in Bangali Rathore and 3 others Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2024:AHC:118989 and for reference the order passed is reproduced hereinafter :-

¶19

"1. This Court has encountered with repeated orders passed under Section 204 Cr.P.C. wherein learned Magistrates are not even referring facts and contents of complaint and statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and as such summoning orders, despite being a serious affair, are being passed in a very casual manner. Impugned order in present case is also a glaring example of it.

¶20

2. Impugned order is quoted below -:

¶21

" पतनवलली पदेश हहई। पररवनददियन कदे दवदनन अधधिवकन कको प्रसनांजनन कदे दबन्दितु पर सतुनन जन चतुकन हहै। पररवनददियन ककी ओर सदे दवपकलीगण बनांगनलली रनठठौर , तरूण उरर नननन। सन्तकोषली एवनां गकोपनल कको धिनरन 406, 420, 354, 504, 506, 120 बली भिन०दि०सनां० कदे अनांतगरत तलब करनदे हदेततु प्रनथरननपत प्रस्तु दकयन गयन हहै। त

¶22

पररवनददियन नदे अपनदे पररवनदि कदे समथरन मम धिनरन 200 दिनां०प्र०सनां० कदे अन्तगरत

¶23

स्वयनां कको एवनां धिनरन 202 दिनां०प्र०सनां० कदे अन्तगरत पली०रब्लपू० -1 हरदेन्द्र कतुमनर एवनां पली०रब्लपू० -2 रदवप्रकनश रनठठौर कको परलीदकत करनयन हहै। सतुनन तथन अवलकोकन दकयन।

¶24

अततः सनक्ष्य कदे अवलकोकन कदे आधिनर पर न्यनयनलय ककी रनय मम इस तथ्य ककी पतुदष्ट हकोतली हहै दक पतनवलली पर उपलब्धि सनमग्रिली। सनक्ष्य कदे आधिनर पर दवपकली बनांगनलली रनठठौर कदे दवरूद्ध प्रथम दृष्टन धिनरन 406, 323, 504, 506, 354 ए भिन०दि०सनां० एवनां दवपकलीगण तरूण उरर लनलन , सन्तकोषली एवनां गकोपनल कदे दवरुद्ध प्रथम दृष्टन धिनरन 323, 504, 506, 354 ए भिन०दि०सनां० कन अपरनधि गदठत हकोतन हहै , धजसकदे धलए अदभियतुकगण तलब हकोनदे यकोग्य हह। अन्य दकसली धिनरन मम अपरनधि बनतन प्रतलीत नहहीं हकोतन हहै। "

¶25

3. I find merit in argument of Sri Gaurav Srivastava, learned counsel for applicants that above referred order is not only bereft of reasons that there are sufficient grounds to proceed but facts of case are also not present and as such, impugned order is in teeth of judgment of Supreme Court in Lalankumar Singh and another vs. State of Maharashtra, 2022 SCC Online SC 1383 and for reference, its relevant paragraphs are mentioned below -:

¶26

"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:

¶27

"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

¶28

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.

¶29

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.

¶30

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 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."

¶31

4. In view of above discussion, I find that impugned order does not survive since it has suffered with legal infirmities.

¶32

5. Accordingly, impugned order dated 15.04.2023 passed in Complaint Case No. 10260/2022 (CNR No. UPAG04091902-2022) (Neelam vs. Bangali Rathor and others) pending before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court-4, Agra is hereby set aside and matter is remitted back to concerned Court to pass a fresh order.

¶33

6. District Judge, District Court, Agra is directed to supply a copy of this order to Hon?ble Administrative Judge of Judgeship, Agra to take note in regard to nature of order passed by concerned Magistrate and if necessary, concerned Magistrate may be sent for fresh training.

¶34

7. Application is disposed of with above observations.

¶35

8. Registrar (Compliance) to take steps."

¶36

Accordingly, the impugned order dated 28.8.2023 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.5, Ghaziabad in Complaint Case No.4432 of 2023 (Smt. Anu Gupta Vs. Yogendra Kumar) Under Section 406 I.P.C. P.S.Sahibabad, District-

¶37

Ghaziabad is hereby set aside and matter is remitted back to learned Trial Court to pass fresh order after hearing the complainant or his Advocate.

¶38