Abdul Majeed and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8149 of 2017

Abdul Majeed And 3 Others

	Versus	.....Applicant(s)
State of U.P. and Another		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	:	Rajesh Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	:	G.A., Vinay Kumar Singh

¶5

Court No. - 84

¶6

HON'BLE JAI PRAKASH TIWARI, J.

¶7

List has been revised.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State are present. None is present on behalf of the opposite party no.2.

¶9

This present application has been filed with the prayer to quash the summoning order dated 04.07.2014, as well as entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.249 of 2014 (Kamrandeen Vs. Abdul Majeed and others) under Sections- 323, 506 IPC Police Station Belghat, District Gorakhpur, pending before learned Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) Basgaon, Gorakhpur.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the opposite party no.2 and his family members were demanded additional dowry and harassing the daughter of applicant no.1. It is further submitted that the applicant no.1 has filed a Suit before Principal Judge, Family Court, Azamgarh on 24.09.2012 being Case No.549 of 2012 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. In the said case, both the parties have entered into a compromise on 24.01.2017. It is also submitted that with mala fide intention, the opposite party no.2 has filed a forged and fabricated complaint on 26.04.2014, which was registered as Complaint Case No.249 of 2014. The statement of opposite party was recorded under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. on 26.04.2014. The statement of two witness were also recorded on 21.05.2014. The learned Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) without going into the merit, has issued the impugned summoning order dated 04.07.2014. Aggrieved by this

¶11

A482 No. 8149 of 2017

¶12

2

¶13

impugned order the applicants have preferred present application with prayer to quash the summoning order.

¶14

In support of his submission, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of M/s. Pepsi Food Ltd. & another vs. Special Judicial Magistrate & others, 1998 UPCrR 118 . Relevant paragraph of the judgment is quoted as under:-

¶15

"Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning the accused. Magistrate had to carefully scrutinize the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused."

¶16

He also placed reliance upon the judgment passed by this Court in case of Chhaya William (Smt.) & others vs. State of U.P. & another, 2003 (47) ACC 1017 . Relevant paragraph of the same is quoted as under:-

¶17

"I have carefully gone through the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court. No doubt on one hand the enquiry conducted under section 202 Cr.P.C. does not need to be detailed enquiry or scrutiny of evidence to that extent which is required for the purposes of the trial or conviction, but at the same time, the

¶18

A482 No. 8149 of 2017

¶19

3

¶20

Court has not to sit as a silent spectator. It must apply its mind while passing order for the issue of summonses under section 204(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure."

¶21

As held by superior Courts the passing of order of summoning any person as accused is a very important matter, which initiates criminal proceeding against him. Such orders cannot be passed summarily or without applying judicial mind.

¶22

In light of this legal position, I have gone through the impugned order. A perusal of this order indicates that learned Magistrate had written nothing concerning facts of the case in hand. Neither any discussion of evidence was made, nor was it considered as to which accused had allegedly committed what overt act. The accused person of complaint were summoned for offences mentioned in that application. No reason was mentioned in the impugned order as to what those documents contain, and how they help the prosecution case. Impugned order clearly lacks the reflection of application of judicial discretion or mind. Nothing is there which may show that learned Magistrate, before passing of the order under challenge had considered facts of the case and evidence or law. Therefore, it appears that, in fact, no judicial mind was applied before the passing of impugned order of summoning. Such order cannot be accepted as a proper legal judicial order passed after following due procedure of law.

¶23

Therefore, impugned order is quashed. The instant application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is accordingly, allowed . The case is remanded back to court concerned with direction to pass afresh the speaking order on point of summoning in light of points discussed in the body of judgment.

¶24

(Jai Prakash Tiwari,J.)

¶25

March 25, 2026 S.K.

¶26

Digitally signed by :- SWEETY KANOJIA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Abdul Majeed and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Majeed and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shubham Kumar Yadav @ Krishna vs State of U.P.

Delinquent Juvenile X Minor vs State of U.P. and Another

Hameed vs State of U.P. and Another

X Juvenile (Minor) vs State of U.P. and Another

Juvenile X vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

X Juvenile vs State of U.P. and 3 Others