Shahnawaj Vs State of Uttarakhand

By means of the present Criminal Miscellaneous Application, the applicants have sought quashing of the summoning order dated 12.03.2021 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 194 of 2019, “Khushnuda vs. Shahnawaj”, pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate/Civil Judge (J.D.), Laksar, District Haridwar. The case arises out of Sections 149, 307, 323, 354, 376, 498-A, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicants contended that the summoning order dated 12.03.2021 is vitiated for non-compliance with the mandatory requirements of Section 204 Cr.P.C., inasmuch as the list of witnesses was neither filed nor considered at the time of issuance of summons. It was submitted that this procedural irregularity goes to the root of the matter and, therefore, vitiates the summoning order.

¶14

Per contra, learned AGA appearing for the State opposed the application and submitted that the complaint discloses specific and serious allegations against the applicants. It is submitted that the

¶15

1

¶16

Criminal Misc. Application.1523 of 2021-----Shahnawaj and Others….Vs……… State & another

¶17

Ashish Naithani J.

¶18

material available on record, including the complainant’s statement and supporting documents, was duly considered by the Magistrate while passing the summoning order. The State contended that the summoning order reflects due application of mind and cannot be interfered with merely on the ground of a curable procedural defect.

¶19

The submission does not persuade this Court advanced. A perusal of the summoning order dated 12.03.2021 shows that the learned Magistrate has applied his judicial mind to the material placed on record and found prima facie grounds to summon the applicants. The absence of a witness list under Section 204 Cr.P.C., assuming it occurred, is a curable irregularity and does not, by itself, invalidate a summoning order passed on the basis of sufficient material.

¶20

The present case does not fall under any of those exceptional categories. The application does not demonstrate that the impugned order is either illegal, perverse, or passed without jurisdiction.

¶21

The inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are to be exercised sparingly, with great caution, and only to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or to secure the ends of justice. No such case is made out on facts or law in the present matter.

¶22

In view of the above, this Court finds no merit in the application. The Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1523 of 2021 is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶23

(Ashish Naithani J.) 08.05.2025

¶24

Shiksha

¶25

SHIKSHA BINJOLA Digitally signed by SHIKSHA BINJOLA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5dba6b3a2c24b5aa08b09c12f21822fbd40bf639b1c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C52796A542D7FF0A9BED00E67B5283D205F18FE29BDF5DD9, cn=SHIKSHA BINJOLA Date: 2025.05.08 16:55:50 +05'30'

¶26

2

¶27

Criminal Misc. Application.1523 of 2021-----Shahnawaj and Others….Vs……… State & another

¶28

Ashish Naithani J.

Shahnawaj v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shahnawaj v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjay Kapoor Vs State of Uttarakhand

Bhagwati Prasad Vs Central Bureau of Investigation CBI

Mahendra Pal Vs State of Uttarakhand

Monu Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand

Heera Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand

Deepak Singh Rana Vs State of Uttarakhand