High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 74 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7625 of 2024
Legal Reasoning
"38. The order of issuance of process is not an empty formality. The Magistrate is required to apply his mind as to whether sufficient ground for proceeding exists in the case or not. The formation of such an opinion is required to be stated in the order itself. The order is liable to be set aside if no reasons are given therein while coming to the conclusion that there is a prima facie case against the accused. No doubt, that the order need not contain detailed reasons. A reference in this respect could be made to the judgment of this Court in the case of Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2015) 4 SCC 609 which reads thus: "51. On the other hand, Section 204 of the Code deals with the issue of process, if in the opinion of the Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence, there is sufficient ground for proceeding. This section relates to commencement of a criminal proceeding. If the Magistrate taking cognizance of a case (it may be the Magistrate receiving the complaint or to whom it has been transferred under Section 192), upon a consideration of the materials before him (i.e. the complaint, examination of the complainant and his witnesses, if present, or report of inquiry, if any), thinks that there is a prima facie case for proceeding in respect of an offence, he shall issue process against the accused. 52. A wide discretion has been given as to grant or refusal of process and it must be judicially exercised. A person ought not to be dragged into court merely because a complaint has been filed. If a prima facie case has been made out, the Magistrate ought to issue process and it cannot be refused merely because he thinks that it is unlikely to result in a conviction. 53. However, the words "sufficient ground for proceeding" appearing in Section 204 are of immense importance. It is these words which amply suggest that an opinion is to be formed only after due application of mind that there is sufficient basis for proceeding against the said accused and formation of such an opinion is to be stated in the order itself. The order is liable to be set aside if no reason is given therein while coming to the conclusion that there is prima facie case against the accused, though the order need not contain detailed reasons. A fortiori, the order would be bad in law if the reason given turns out to be ex facie incorrect." Sachin Garg (supra) "18. While it is true that at the stage of issuing summons a magistrate only needs to be satisfied with a prima facie case for taking cognizance, the duty of the magistrate is also to be satisfied whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding, as has been held in the case of Jagdish Ram (supra). The same proposition of law has been laid down in the case of Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Anr. -vs Special Judicial Magistrate and Ors. [(1998) 5 SCC 749]. The learned Magistrate's order issuing summons records the background of the case in rather longish detail but reflects his satisfaction in a cryptic manner...." 3. In the aforesaid circumstances, since the learned Magistrate has not applied his judicial mind while passing the impugned order and summoned the applicants in a very cursory manner without assigning any reason , therefore, such approach is depreciated. 4. Accordingly, impugned order dated 2.2.2024 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.4, Agra is set aide and the matter is remitted back to pass a fresh order. 5. Copy of this order be sent to Hon'ble the Administrative Judge of District Judgeship, Agra to be taken on record and, if necessary, sent the officer concerned on training. 6. Registrar (Compliance) to take steps.
Arguments
Applicant :- Smt. Sapna And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Akhilesh Singh,Jyoti Kushwaha,Rahul,Rakesh Singh,Ravish Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vipin Chandra Pandey Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J. 1. Heard Sri Ravish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for applicants and Sri Vipin Chandra Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party and the learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This is an example how the learned trial court is dealing with the serious issue to summon an accused, without appreciating that to summon an accused under Section 204 Cr.P.C. is an important and serious matter. Such order shall assign reason that there are sufficient ground to proceed on the basis of the fact of the case, documents and statements recorded under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. However, the impugned order, which is reproduced hereinafter, does not disclose either fact of the case, or manner of occurrence or contents of the statements, even in brief. Therefore, the Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order is in the teeth of judgment passed by Supreme Court in Lalankumar Singh and others vs. State of Maharashtra, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1383 and Sachin Gang vs. State of U.P. and another, 2024 INSC 72, and for reference relevant paragraph thereof are also reproduced hereinafter: "पतत्रावलली पपेश हहई। पररिवत्रादली कपे ववदत्रान अधधिवकत्रा कको प्रससंजत्रान कपे वबिन्दद परि सदनत्रा जत्रा चदकत्रा हहै। पररिवत्रादली ककी ओरि सपे ववपकलीगण रिमपेश , कक ष्णत्रा दपेवली, यशपत्राल, पसंकज, शलीमतली सपनत्रा, ससंजय, लक्ष्मली, धिमरवलीरि एवसं पपूनम कको धित्रारित्रा-406, 420, 120 बिली, 323, 452, 504, 506 भत्रा०दसं०ससं० कपे असंतगरत तलबि करिनपे हपेतद प्रत्राररनत्रापत प्रस्तदत वकयत्रा गयत्रा हहै। पररिवत्रादली नपे अपनपे पररिवत्राद कपे समररन मम धित्रारित्रा 200 दसं०प्र०ससं० कपे अन्तगरत स्वयसं कको एवसं धित्रारित्रा 202 दसं०प्र०ससं० कपे अन्तगरत पली०डब्ल्यपू0-01 अनपूप कद मत्रारि एवसं पली०डब्लपू0-2 अजय कद मत्रारि कको परिलीवकत करित्रायत्रा हहै। सदनत्रा तरत्रा अवलकोकन वकयत्रा। अततः सत्राक्ष्य कपे अवलकोकन कपे आधित्रारि परि न्यत्रायत्रालय ककी रित्राय मम इस तथ्य ककी पदवष्टि हकोतली हहै वक पतत्रावलली परि उपलब्धि सत्रामगली / सत्राक्ष्य कपे आधित्रारि परि ववपकली शलीमतली सपनत्रा कपे ववरूद्ध प्ररम दृष्टियत्रा धित्रारित्रा-406, 323, 504, 506 भत्रा०दसं०ससं० एवसं ववपकलीगण रिमपेश, कक ष्णत्रा दपेवली, यशपत्राल एवसं पसंकज कपे ववरूद्ध प्ररम दृष्टियत्रा धित्रारित्रा -323, 504, 506 भत्रा०दसं०ससं० कत्रा अपरित्राधि गवठित हकोतत्रा हहै , धजसकपे धलए अवभयदकगण तलबि हकोनपे यकोग्य हह। अन्य वकसली व्यवक कपे ववरूद्ध एवसं अन्य वकसली धित्रारित्रा मम अपरित्राधि बिनतत्रा प्रतलीत नहहीं हकोतत्रा हहै। आदपेश अवभयदकत्रा सपनत्रा कको धित्रारित्रा -406, 323, 504, 506 भत्रा०दसं०ससं०, एवसं अवभयदकगण रिमपेश, कक ष्णत्रा दपेवली, यशपत्राल एवसं पसंकज कको धित्रारित्रा-323, 504, 506 भत्रा०दसं०ससं० कपे अपरित्राधि कपे ववचत्रारिण हपेतद तलबि वकयत्रा जत्रातत्रा हहै। पररिवत्रादली पहैरिवली अन्दरि 7 वदवस करिपे। बित्राद पहैरिवली व सपूचली गवत्राहत्रान दत्राधखिल हकोनपे कपे पश्चत्रात अवभयदकगण कको समन जत्रारिली हहों। पतत्रावलली वत्रास्तपे उपसस्रवत अवभयदकगण वदनत्रासंक 06.03.2024 कको पपेश हको।" Lalankumar Singh (supra)
Decision
7. The application is disposed of. Order Date :- 18.7.2024 Kumar Manish.