Others v. State of U.P. and Another
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:134084 Court No. - 74 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12864 of 2024 Applicant :- Smt Neetu And 7 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Singh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
Legal Reasoning
I find substance that present case is squarely covered by judgment passed by this Court in Vijay Jaiswal And 6 Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another, 2024:AHC:130154 that in the impugned order, even date of occurrence as well as details of occurrence have not been referred even in brief. Learned Trial Court has also not mentioned the statement recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. 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 -: "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." In view of above discussion, I find that it is a fit case where inherent powers of this Court could be exercised. Accordingly, impugned order dated 25.03.2019 passed Complaint Case No. 7551 of 2018 under Sections 323, 352, 355 I.P.C., Police Station- Loni, District- Ghaziabad pending before the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.-1, Ghaziabad is hereby set aside and matter is remitted back to pass a fresh order. At this stage, Sri Ajay Singh Yadav, learned counsel for applicants has rushed to this Court and placed a judgment passed by this Court in case of Bangali Rathore and 3 others vs. State of U.P. and another, 2024:AHC:118989, which has been referred in above referred Vijay Jaiswal And 6 Others(supra). It is directed that District Judge, Ghaziabad will call an explanation from concerned officer who has passed above referred order by not only closing his judicial mind but his eyes also. A copy of this order be sent to Hon'ble Administrative Judge, Ghaziabad in regard to nature of order passed by concerned Officer.
Arguments
Sri Ajay Singh Yadav, learned counsel for applicants is not present. Sri D.P.S. Chauhan, learned A.G.A. for State submits that impugned order which is passed under Section 204 Cr.P.C. is bereft of any details of case. At this stage, I appoint Ms. Bhavana Jaiswal, Advocate (AOR No. A/B0839/2021) as an Amicus Curiae to assist the Court. Ms. Bhavana Jaiswal, Advocate has read out the entire impugned order which is reproduced hereinafter :- "ददिनननांक 25-03-19 पतनवलली आदिदेश हदेततु पदेश हहई। पररिवनदिली ककी ओरि सदे दवपकलीगण कको धनरिन 323,3452,406,392,504,506 भन०दिनां०सनां० कदे अपरिनध मदे तलब दकयदे जननदे हदेततु प्रस्ततुत पररिवनदि सनांसस्स्थित दकयन गयन हहै। पररिवनदिली नदे पररिवनदि कदे समस्थिरन मम स्वयनां कको धनरिन 200 व सनकलीगण कमल व प्रमकोदि कको धनरिन 202 दिनां०प्र०सनां० कदे अन्तगरत परिलीदकत करिनयन हहै। पररिवनदिली नदे पतनवलली परि अदभलदेखलीय सनक्ष्य भली दिनखखल ककी हहै। पररिवनदिली नदे अपनदे बयनन धनरिन 200 दिनां०प्र०सनां० मम पररिवनदि पत मम उदल्लिखखत कस्थिननों कन समस्थिरन दकयन हहै। पररिवनदिली कदे सनकलीगण नदे भली पररिवनदिली कदे कस्थिननों कको बल प्रदिनन दकयन हहै। मनमलदे मम पररिवनदिली एवनां सनकलीगण कदे बयनननों सदे दवपकलीगण कदे दवरूद्ध प्रस्थिमदृष्टयन धनरिन 323,352,355 भनरितलीय दिण्ड सनांदहतन मम कनयरवनहली दकयदे जननदे कन पयनरप्त आधनरि पनयन जनतन हहै। अन्य दकसली धनरिन मम कनयरवनहली दकयदे जननदे हदेततु पयनरप्त सनक्ष्य पतनवलली परि नहली हहै। आदिदेश अदभयतुक्तगण शलीमतली नलीतत, ब्रहमपनल, अनांगतरिली, सतुनलीतन, दनशन, दबजदेन्द, प्रवदेश व दब्रजदेश कको धनरिन-323,352,355 भनरितलीय दिण्ड सनांदहतन मम दवचनरिण हदेततु तलब दकयन जनतन हहै। पररिवनदिली गवनहनन ककी खलस्ट दिनखखल करिदे। बनदि दिनखखल करिनदे गवनहनन खलस्ट अदभयतुक्तगण उपरिकोक्त कदे दवरूद्ध समन जनरिली हको। पररिवनदिली अदभयतुक्तगण कदे दवरूद्ध आदिदेदशकन जनरिली करिनदे कदे खलयदे आवश्यक पहैरिवली अनांदिरि सप्तनह करिदे। पतनवलली वनस्तदे हनखजरिली मतुसलजम ददिनननाँक 06-05-2019 कको पदेश हको।"
Decision
Application is, accordingly, disposed of. For valuable assistance of Amicus Curiae Ms. Bhavana Jaiswal, Advocate (AOR No. A/B0839/2021), High Court Legal Services Committee is directed to pay Rs. 2,500/- to her within a short period. Registrar (Compliance) to take steps. Order Date :- 21.8.2024 P. Pandey