High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:153439 Court No. - 74 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12369 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." 5. In view of above discussion, I find that it is a fit case where inherent powers of this Court could be exercised. 6. Accordingly, impugned order dated 21.10.2023 passed in Complaint Case No. 616 of 2022 (Bharat Singh Vs. Manoj Kumar and others) under Sections 323, 452, 504 I.P.C. pending in Judge (Senior Division/F.T.C.C.A.W.), District- Mainpuri is hereby set aside and matter is remitted back to pass a fresh order. learned Civil the Court of 7. It is directed that District Judge, Mainpuri will call an explanation from concerned officer who has passed above referred order not only closing his judicial mind but his eyes also. 8. A copy of this order be sent to Hon'ble Administrative Judge, Mainpuri in regard to nature of order passed by concerned Officer.
Arguments
Applicant :- Manoj Kumar And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjai Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J. 1. Heard Sri Sanjai Srivastava, learned counsel for applicants and Sri D.P.S. Chauhan, learned A.G.A. for State. 2. This Court has again encountered with an unreasoned impugned summoning order wherein after referring statement recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., without application of mind, applicants are summoned. For reference, relevant part of impugned order is quoted below -: "ददिनननांक -21.10.2023 पतनवलली वनस्तते आदितेश आज मतेरते समक्ष प्रस्ततुत हहई। दवदननन् अधधिवकन पररवनदिली कको पपूवर दतधथि पर सतुनन जन चतुकन हहै। पररवनदिली दनरन प्रनथिरनन पत अदभियतुकगण कको तलब दकए जननते हतेततु प्रस्ततुत दकयन गयन हहै। प्रनथिरननपत कते समथिरन मम पतुधलस अधिलीक्षक कको प्रतेदषित प्रनथिरनन पत ककी प्रदत मय रधजस्टटली रसलीदि प्रस्ततुत ककी गयली हहै। सतुनन तथिन पतनवलली कन अवलकोकन दकयन गयन। पररवनददिनली दनरन धिनरन-200 दिनां० प्र० सनां० कते बयनन मम कथिन दकयन हहै दक घटनन ददिनननांक 12.07.2018 कको रनत आठ बजते ककी हहै। मतेरते सनथि गनलली-गललौज मनकोज कतुमनर, शलीककष्ण और धजततेन्द्र नते ककी थिली। मतेरन इनसते मतुकदिमन चल रहन हहै। वको मतुकदिमन दवपक्षली नते दकयन हहै। इसकते बनदि घर चलते गए। 13.07.2018 कको सतुबह 06:30 बजते लनठली- डण्डन लतेकर दवपक्षलीगण मतेरते पलीछते भिनगते। मम अपनते घर मम घतुस गयन। मनरनते पलीटनते लगते। तलीननों लकोगको नते दमलकर मनरन। लनठली-डण्डनों सते मनरन। 10-15 दमनट तक मनर-पलीट हकोतली रहली। चकोटम आयली थिली। कनफकी चकोटम आयली थिथीं। अस्पतनल गयन थिन। कतुछ नहथीं हहआ। मतेदडकल 13.07.2018 कको 12:00 बजते कते बनदि हहआ थिन। मम थिननते उसली ददिन गयन थिन। महै पहलते अस्पतनल गयन थिन। दफर घर गयन थिन। थिननते पर ककोई सतुनवनई नहथीं हहई। एस.पली. सनहब कको 13.07.2018 कको प्रनथिरनन पत ददियन थिन। पररवनदिली ककी ओर सते धिनरन-202 दिनां० प्र० सनां० कते अन्तगरत सनक्षलीगण पली० डब्लपू-1 इन्द्रतेश व पली० डब्लपू 2 अवधितेश कतुमनर नते भिली पररवनदि पत मम दकए गए कथिननों कन समथिरन दकयन। पररवनदिली दनरन चकोटनों कते सनांबनांधि मम दचदकत्सलीय आख्यन ककी छनयनप्रदत पतनवलली पर मलौजपूदि हहै। अततः ऐसली सस्थिदत मम पतनवलली पर उपलब्धि सनक्ष्य कते आधिनर पर दवपक्षलीगण मनकोज कतुमनर, शलीककष्ण, धजततेन्द्र कते दवरुद्ध धिनरन-323,452,504 भिन.दिनां.सनां. मम प्रथिम दृष्टयन मनमलन बनतन हहै। अततः उपरकोक दववतेचनन कते प्रकनश मम अदभियतुकगण मनकोज कतुमनर , शलीककष्ण, धजततेन्द्र कको तलब दकए जननते कन आधिनर पयनरप्त हहै। आदितेश अदभियतुक मनकोज कतुमनर, धजततेन्द्र कको अन्तगरत धिनरन - 323,452,504 भिन.दिनां.सनां. कते अन्तगरत जररयते समन आहहत दकयन जनतन हहै। पररवनदिली गवनहनों ककी सपूचली एवनां पहैरवली अन्दिर सप्तनह प्रस्ततुत करम। तदिकोपरनन्त अदभियतुकगण कते दवरूद्ध समन ददिनननांक 22.11.2023 कते धलए जनरली हको।" 3. This 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. 4. A judgment of Supreme Court in Lalankumar Singh and another vs. State of Maharashtra, 2022 SCC Online SC 1383 is relevant on this issue and its relevant paragraphs are mentioned below -:
Decision
9. Application is, accordingly, disposed of. 10. Registrar (Compliance) to take steps. Order Date :- 20.9.2024 P. Pandey