Allowed¶11

Mahendra Thapa Alias Mangal Thapa v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC1 Aug 2025C482/1592/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Uttarakhand High Court C482 1592/2016 Section 482 CrPC quashing application; non-application of judicial mind; cyclostyled printed-format summoning order; charge sheet No. 100 of 2015; Criminal Case No. 4201 of 2015 State vs Mangal Thapa and Others; ACJM II Dehradun; summoning order dated 14.12.2015 quashed qua applicants; remand to Trial Court for fresh reasoned summoning order within four weeks; Alok Mahra J; decided 01.08.2025.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the summoning order dated 14.12.2015 qua the applicants and remand to the Trial Court for fresh consideration and a fresh, reasoned summoning order within four weeks. ¶11

Mahendra Thapa Alias Mangal Thapa Vs State of Uttarakhand — Uttarakhand HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of the summoning order dated 14.12.2015 qua the applicants and remand to the Trial Court for fresh consideration and a fresh, reasoned summoning order within four weeks.

¶11

Issue for consideration

Whether the summoning order dated 14.12.2015 in Criminal Case No. 4201 of 2015 suffered from non-application of judicial mind, warranting its quashing qua the applicants and remand for a fresh reasoned summoning order.

¶7

Court's answer

The impugned summoning order was passed in a cursory and mechanical manner using a printed format, without indicating any application of judicial mind or reference to material evidence.

¶7

Ratio / Principle

The order passed by the Trial Court is cryptic and mechanical, and the Trial Court failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it in a lawful and judicious manner.

¶9

Key takeaways

It is a settled position of law that summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter and the order must reflect conscious application of mind to the facts and material on record.ratio¶9
The concerned Magistrate is directed to pass a fresh summoning order, as per law, within a period of four weeks from the date of production of the certified copy of this order.ratio¶10

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Section 482 Cr.P.C. application (C482 No. 1592 of 2016) before the Uttarakhand High Court (Alok Mahra, J.; decided 01.08.2025) seeking quashing of charge sheet No. 100 of 2015, the summoning order dated 14.12.2015 and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 4201 of 2015 (State vs. Mangal Thapa and Others) pending before ACJM II, Dehradun. The Court found the impugned summoning order cryptic, cursory and mechanical — passed in a printed format without application of judicial mind or reference to material evidence — and reiterated that summoning of an accused is a serious matter requiring conscious application of mind to the facts and material on record. The application was allowed, the summoning order was quashed qua the applicants, and the matter was remanded to the Trial Court to consider the applicants' case afresh and pass a fresh, reasoned summoning order after due application of judicial mind within four weeks.

¶1

2025:UHC:6806

¶2

SL. No.	Date	Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures	COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
			C482 No. 1592 of 2016 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Piyush Garg, learned counsel for the applicants. 2. Mr. B. N. Molakhi, learned DAG for the State. 3. Mr. Karan Anand, learned counsel for respondent no. 2. 4. The present criminal misc. application has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing and setting aside the charge sheet No. 100 of 2015, summoning order dated 14.12.2015, as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 4201 of 2015, State Vs. Mangal Thapa and Others, pending in the court of ACJM II, Dehradun. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicants that the concerned ACJM did not apply his mind before passing the impugned order; it is a cyclostyled order. 7. From the perusal of the impugned summoning order, it is clear that it has been passed in a cursory and mechanical manner using a printed format without indicating any application of judicial mind or reference to material evidence. 8. Learned counsel for the private respondent supported the impugned order, however, he would fairly concede that the impugned summoning order suffers from non-application of judicial mind and submits that the matter may be remanded to the Trial Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law. 9. Having considered the submissions

¶3

2025:UHC:6806

¶4

of the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the impugned
summoning order as well as the judgments cited, it is evident that the order passed by the Trial Court is cryptic and mechanical. The Trial Court failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it in a lawful and judicious manner. It is a settled position of law that summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter and the order must reflect conscious application of mind to the facts and material on record.
10. The concerned Magistrate is directed to pass a fresh summoning order, as per law, within a period of four weeks from the date of production of the certified copy of this order. 11. Accordingly, the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. The summoning order dated 14.12.2015
passed in Criminal Case No. 4201 of
2015_qua_the present applicants is hereby quashed. The matter is remanded back to the concerned Trial Court with a
direction to consider the case of the
applicants afresh and pass an appropriate reasoned order in accordance with law after due application of judicial mind, within a period of four weeks from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order. (Alok Mahra, J.) 01.08.2025 Ujjwal

Mahendra Thapa Alias Mangal Thapa v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendra Thapa Alias Mangal Thapa v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Shail Goyal Vs Smt. Neelam

Smt. Chitralekha Vs State of Uttarakhand

Praveen Alias Pappan Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Another

Pushpa Devi Vs State of Uttarakhand

Amit Chopra Vs State of Uttarakhand

Arun Gupta Vs State of Uttarakhand