Petitioner challenged a summon issued under Sections 107 and 116 Cr.P.C. alleging procedural violation of Section 114. Bench rejected claim, found SDM acted within jurisdiction, and dismissed the petition.
Petition to quash the summon dated 06.01.2020 was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Order Reserved on 10/01/2022 Order Delivered on 11/03/2022
WPCR No. 42 of 2020
---- Petitioner
Versus
---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Kshitij Sharma, Adv. For State/Respondents : Mr. Akash Pandey, P.L.
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey C A V Order
Heard.
2
present petitioner is not accepted by the respondent authorities who in fact are determined to arrest the petitioner thus depriving the petitioner of his right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India in contravention of the procedure established by Law. This petition is filed by the petitioner to issue an appropriate writ/order directing to call for the record of the entire matter with regard to the quashing the impugned summon dated 06.01.2020 (Annexure-P/1).
3
4
forwarded to the respondent No. 2-SDM for further necessary action. Copy of the same is annexed herewith as Annexure-R/2. On receiving the said report submitted by the Patwari, the respondent No. 2 had made an opinion that there is sufÏcient ground for proceeding against the petitioner, therefore the case has been registered against the petitioner under Sections 107 and 116(3) of Cr.P.C. to which a detailed order has been passed and notice was issued to the petitioner vide dated 06.01.2020 as to why he should not be appeared to execute a bond for keeping the peace in that area. The same is annexed herewith as Annexure-R/3. It is next submitted that the notice dated 06.01.2020 issued by the respondent No. 3 was received by the petitioner, even though he failed to appear on the next date of hearing before the SDM, thereafter the respondent No. 2, while exercising its power under Section 113 of Cr.P.C. had issued a bailable warrant against the petitioner to make his presence on next date of hearing i.e. 20.01.2020, which was also served upon the petitioner but he failed to appear before the SDM as a result an arrest warrant has bee issued against the petitioner and the same has not been executed till date. Copy of the bailable warrant is annexed herewith as Annexure-R/4. He lastly submitted that the respondent No. 2 while exercising its power under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. had made an order in writing, setting forth substance of the information received about the wrongful act committed by the petitioner, thereafter only issued notice to the petitioner to execute such a bond. The SDM had exercised its power well within the parameters of the provision of 107 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the summon/notice dated 06.01.2020 is well within the jurisdiction of issuing authority.
5
6
Sd/(Rajani Dubey) Judge
H.L. Sahu
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the summon issued under Sections 107 and 116 Cr.P.C. to appear before the SDM was procedural and within jurisdiction?
Whether the impugned summon violated Article 21 of the Constitution of India by depriving the petitioner of rights through illegal procedure?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
2011(4) C.G. L.J.Explained¶19
Madhu Limaye & Anr. Vs. Ved Murti & Ors.Referred¶19
(1970) 3 SCC 739 · Who else cites this
Tavinder Kumar & Ors. Vs. StateReferred¶19
MANU/DE/0335/1989
Aldanish Rein Vs. State of NCT of DelhiReferred¶19
MANU/DE/3998/2018
Pawa Kumar Singh Vs. State of UP & Ors.Referred¶19
MANU/UP/1149/2019
Abhishek Malviya Vs. State of UP & Ors.Referred¶19
Case Appl. u/s 482 No. 9941/2019
Bharat Valji Hangama & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors.Referred¶19
MANU/GJ/0052/2015
Rafiq Vs. The State of MaharashtraReferred¶19
MANU/MH/1099/2014
6 provisions across 2 enactments
Rohit Kumar Jaiswal
District Magistrate Bilaspur
Sub-Divisional Magistrate Pendra Road
S.H.O. Police Station Gaurela
Rajani Dubey
H.L. Sahu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
