Allowed

Badri Ram @ Badri Parshad & Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC4 Dec 2008CRM-M/23463/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a petition challenging a summons order framed under Sections 498-A/406/323/506 IPC and Section 34 IPC. The court held that a summons order jeopardizing liberty must announce reasons and show application of mind, setting aside a cryptic order.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order summoning the accused was set aside. The learned Magistrate was given liberty to pass a fresh order on material on file.

Badri Ram @ Badri Parshad & Ors. Vs State… — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2008)

¶1

Criminal Misc. No.M-23463 of 2008

¶2

-1-

¶3

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶5

Criminal Misc. No.M-23463 of 2008

¶6

Date of decision : 4.12.2008

¶7

Badri Ram @ Badri Parshad and others

¶8

. ....Petitioners

¶9

Versus

¶10

State of Haryana and another

¶11

...Respondents

¶12

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND

¶13

Present: Mr. Rajesh Khandelwal, Advocate for the petitioners

¶14

Mr. S.S.Mor, SeniorDeputy Advocate General, Haryana

¶15

Mr. R.S.Mamli, Advocate for the complainant.

¶16

S. D. ANAND, J.

¶17

The operative part of the order under challenge reads as

¶18

under:-

¶19

“I have perused the evidence led by the complainant and the document relied upon by him, and from perusal, this Court is quite satisfied that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused under Sections 498-A/406/323/506 read with section 34 of Indian Pernal Code. Accordingly, the accused are ordered to be summoned for facing trial before the Court in compliance of Section 204 of Cr.P.C.”

¶20

In course of para l of the impugned order, the learned Trial Magistrate only noticed the filing of the complaint by the complainant and the offence under which it had been filed.

¶21

Para 2 thereof records that arguments had been heard.

¶22

In paras 3 and 4 of the impugned order, the learned

¶23

Criminal Misc. No.M-23463 of 2008

¶24

-2-

¶25

*******

¶26

Magistrate noticed three judicial pronouncements (“U.P.Pollution Control Board Vs. M/s Mohan Meakings Ltd. And others 2002 (2) RCR (Criminal) 421, Kanti Bhandra Shah Vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 2000(1) RCR (Criminal) 407 and Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports Vs. Roshan Lal Aggarwal 2003 (2) RCR (Crl) III) in support of the observation that “at this stage of issues, the process against the accused, Magistrate is not required to record reasons.”

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioners assails the validity of the impugned order as being sketchy and non transparent. The averment, in the context, is that the impugned order does not even notice what ever appeared in the preliminary evidence.

¶28

Learned counsel for the respondent/complainant argues the contrary by averring that the judicial pronouncements noticed in the impugned order are fully supportive of the line of reasoning adopted by the learned Magistrate in refraining from recording a detailed order at the stage of summoning of accused,

¶29

The citation of the first case is incorrect inasmuch as no such case is reported at that page. Insofar as the ruling in Kanti Bhandra Shah's case (supra) is concerned, the Apex Court made those observations for the purposes of framing of charge. It was in that context that the Apex Court noticed that, at the time of framing of charge sheet, the Court is required to record reasons if it decides to discharge the accused. It was further observed that if accused is to be charge sheeted, the Court may do so without recording the reasons why the charge was being framed. The third judicial pronouncement in Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports case (supra) is also not applicant to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In that case, the Apex court was

¶30

Criminal Misc. No.M-23463 of 2008

¶31

-3-

¶32

*******

¶33

dealing with the summoning of an accused in a complaint filed by a public servant. It is not so in the case before this Court.

¶34

By the very nature of things, the summoning of an accused jeopardises his liberty. An order of indicated category must announce to the accused the reasons on the basis whereof his summoning has been ordered. An order in that context must indicate application of mind by the learned Magistrate.

¶35

It would be evident from a perusal of the impugned order that it suffers from the vice of being cryptic and non speaking character.

¶36

The petition shall stand allowed accordingly. The impugned order shall stand set aside. Learned Magistrate shall, however, be at liberty to pass an order afresh on the basis of material obtaining on the file.

¶37

December 04, 2008 Pka

¶38

(S. D. ANAND) JUDGE

Badri Ram @ Badri Parshad & Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Badri Ram @ Badri Parshad & Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Haryana Vs Satbir and Anr.

Partap Singh and Others. Vs Hy.St.

M/S Sajan Hire Purchase P Ltd. Vs Rajvir Kaur

Rupinder Singh Virk and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Sukhchain Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Seema and Anr. Vs State of Punjab