High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:125470 Court No. - 74 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9475 of 2024 Applicant :- Vinay Singh @ Netul And 6 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Kumar Chaubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
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." 4. In view of above discussion, I find that impugned order does not survive since it has suffered with legal infirmities. 5. Accordingly, impugned order dated 15.04.2023 passed in Complaint Case No. 10260/2022 (CNR No. UPAG04091902-2022) (Neelam vs. Bangali Rathor and others) pending before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court-4, Agra is hereby set aside and matter is remitted back to concerned Court to pass a fresh order. 6. District Judge, District Court, Agra is directed to supply a copy of this order to Hon?ble Administrative Judge of Judgeship, Agra to take note in regard to nature of order passed by concerned Magistrate and if necessary, concerned Magistrate may be sent for fresh training.
Arguments
1. Heard Sri Brijesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. This is another example where the learned Magistrate has not applied his application of mind and has passed impugned order under Section 203 Cr.P.C. by closing his eyes also. The impugned order is reproduced hereinafter :- "ददिनननांक -11.04.2023 पतनवलली आदिदेशनरर पदेश हहयली। पररिवनददिनली कदे दवदनन अधधिवकन कको अदभिययकगण कको तलब दकयदे जननदे कदे दबन्दिय परि पपूवर मम दवस्तनरिपपूवरक सयनन जन चयकन हहै। पतनवलली कन सम्यक अवलकोकन दकयन गयन। पररिवनददिनली नदे पररिवनदि पत कदे समररन मम ममौधखिक सनक्ष्य कदे रूप मम स्वयनां कको धिनरिन 200 दि०प्र०सनां० कदे तहत एवनां पली०डब्लपू०-1 मयजलीबयरिरहमनन एवनां पली०डब्लपू० 2 इबनदहनांग कको धिनरिन 202 दिनां०प्र०सनां० कदे तहत परिलीदक्षित करिनयन हहै धजन्हहोंनदे पररिवनदि पत कदे करनहों कन समररन दकयन हहै। दिनांड प्रदक्रियन सनांदहतन ककी धिनरिन 200 दिनां०प्र०सनां० कदे अनांतगरत पररिवनददिनली कदे बयनन एवनां धिनरिन 202 दिनां०प्र०सनां० कदे अनांतगरत सनक्षिलीगण पली०डब्लपू०-1 मयजलीबयरिरहमनन एवनां पली०डब्लपू० 2 इबनदहम कदे बयनन तरन पतनवलली परि उपलब्धि प्रलदेखिलीय सनक्ष्यहों कदे सम्यक पररिशलीलन सदे अदभिययकगण नदेटयल उरर दवनय धसनांह , टमनटरि धसनांह, गकोल्डन धसनांह, भिकोलदे धसनांह उरर रूपदेश धसनांह , बबलपू धसनांह उरर भिकोभिल, तदेजपू धसनांह एवनां सनदहल धसनांह उरर रिकोदबन कदे दनरिन धिनरिन - 147, 323, 452, 504, 506,427 भिन०दिनां०दव० कदे अनांतगरत प्ररम दृष्टयन अपरिनधि कनररित दकयन जननन पनयन जनतन हहै। तदिनयसनरि उक धिनरिनओनां मम दवचनरिण हदेतय अदभिययकगण नदेटयल उरर दवनय धसनांह, टमनटरि धसनांह, गकोल्डन धसनांह, भिकोलदे धसनांड उरर रूपदेश धसनांह, बलपू धसनांह उरर भिकोभिल, तदेजपू धसनांह एवनां सनदहल धसनांह उरर रिकोदबन उक धिनरिनओनां कदे अनांतगरत तलब दकयदे जननदे यकोग्य हह। आदिदेश अदभिययकगण नदेटयल उरर दवनय धसनांह, टमनटरि धसनांह, गकोल्डन धसनांह, भिकोलदे धसनांह उरर रूपदेश धसनांह , बबलपू धसनांह उरर भिकोभिल , तदेजपू धसनांह एवनां सनदहल धसनांह उरर रिकोदबन कको अन्तगरत धिनरिन 147, 323, 452, 504, 506, 427 भिन०दि०सनां० कदे अपरिनधि मम जररियदे सम्मन दवचनरिण हदेतय तलब दकयन जनतन हहै। पररिवनददिनली पहैरिवली अन्दिरि सपनह करिदे। पररिवनददिनली गवनहनन ककी सपूचली अदवलम्ब दिनधखिल करिदे। पतनवलली वनस्तदे हनधजरिली मयलल्जमनन ददिनननांक 11-05-2023 कको पदेश हको। 3. From bare perusal of impugned order, it would be clear that even facts of case, brief contents of statement of complainant and witnesses are not mentioned. The impugned order in its present form is absolutely illegal and is liable to be set aside. 4. The Court has already taken a serious note of similar summoning order passed in Bangali Rathore and 3 others Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2024:AHC:118989 and for reference the order passed is reproduced hereinafter :- "1. This Court has encountered with repeated orders passed under Section 204 Cr.P.C. wherein learned Magistrates are not even referring facts and contents of complaint and statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and as such summoning orders, despite being a serious affair, are being passed in a very casual manner. Impugned order in present case is also a glaring example of it. 2. Impugned order is quoted below -: "पतनवलली पदेश हहई। पररिवनददियन कदे दवदनन अधधिवकन कको प्रसनांजनन कदे दबन्दिय परि सयनन जन चयकन हहै। पररिवनददियन ककी ओरि सदे दवपक्षिलीगण बनांगनलली रिनठमौरि, तरूण उरर नननन। सन्तकोषली एवनां गकोपनल कको धिनरिन 406, 420, 354, 504, 506, 120 बली भिन०दि०सनां० कदे अनांतगरत तलब करिनदे हदेतय प्रनररननपत प्रस्तयत दकयन गयन हहै। पररिवनददियन नदे अपनदे पररिवनदि कदे समररन मम धिनरिन 200 दिनां०प्र०सनां० कदे अन्तगरत स्वयनां कको एवनां धिनरिन 202 दिनां०प्र०सनां० कदे अन्तगरत पली०डब्लपू०-1 हरिदेन्द्र कयमनरि एवनां पली०डब्लपू०-2 रिदवप्रकनश रिनठमौरि कको परिलीदक्षित करिनयन हहै। सयनन तरन अवलकोकन दकयन। अततः सनक्ष्य कदे अवलकोकन कदे आधिनरि परि न्यनयनलय ककी रिनय मम इस तथ्य ककी पयदष्ट हकोतली हहै दक पतनवलली परि उपलब्धि सनमगली। सनक्ष्य कदे आधिनरि परि दवपक्षिली बनांगनलली रिनठमौरि कदे दवरूद्ध प्ररम दृष्टन धिनरिन 406, 323, 504, 506, 354 ए भिन०दि०सनां० एवनां दवपक्षिलीगण तरूण उरर लनलन, सन्तकोषली एवनां गकोपनल कदे दवरुद्ध प्ररम दृष्टन धिनरिन 323, 504, 506, 354 ए भिन०दि०सनां० कन अपरिनधि गदठत हकोतन हहै, धजसकदे धलए अदभिययकगण तलब हकोनदे यकोग्य हह। अन्य दकसली धिनरिन मम अपरिनधि बनतन प्रतलीत नहहीं हकोतन हहै।" 3. I find merit in argument of Sri Gaurav Srivastava, learned counsel for applicants that above referred order is not only bereft of reasons that there are sufficient grounds to proceed but facts of case are also not present and as such, impugned order is in teeth of judgment of Supreme Court in Lalankumar Singh and another vs. State of Maharashtra, 2022 SCC Online SC 1383 and for reference, its relevant paragraphs are mentioned below -:
Decision
7. Application is disposed of with above observations. 8. Registrar (Compliance) to take steps." 5. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 11.4.2023 passed by Civil Judge (S.D.)/F.T.C. Azamgarh in Complaint Case No.1045 of 2023 Under Sections 147, 323, 452, 504, 506 and 427 I.P.C. P.S.,Tarwa, District-Azamgarh is hereby set aside and matter is remitted back to learned Trial Court to pass fresh order after hearing the complainant or his Advocate. 6. The aforesaid exercise shall be concluded within four weeks. 7. Application is disposed of with aforesaid observation. 8. A copy of this order be sent to District Judge, Azamgarh to be forwarded to Hon'ble the Administrative Judge to take note of the order. 9. Registrar (Compliance) to take steps. Order Date :- 5.8.2024 SB