High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:147149 Court No. - 74 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13962 of 2024 Applicant :- Kapil Muni Rai And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Bindeshwari Prasad Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
Legal Reasoning
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." Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. and Ors. "41. Before we close this matter, we would like to say something as regards the casual approach of the courts below in cases like the one at hand. The Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) was the official Criminal Code in the Republic of India inherited from the British India after independence. The IPC came into force in the sub-continent during the British rule in 1862. The IPC remained in force for almost a period of 162 years until it was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita ("BNS") in December 2023 which came into effect on 1st July 2024. It is indeed very sad to note that even after these many years, the courts have not been able to understand the fine distinction between criminal breach of trust and cheating. 42. When dealing with a private complaint, the law enjoins upon the magistrate a duty to meticulously examine the contents of the complaint so as to determine whether the offence of cheating or criminal breach of trust as the case may be is made out from the averments made in the complaint. The magistrate must carefully apply its mind to ascertain whether the allegations, as stated, genuinely constitute these specific offences. In contrast, when a case arises from a FIR, this responsibility is of the police - to thoroughly ascertain whether the allegations levelled by the informant indeed falls under the category of cheating or criminal breach of trust. Unfortunately, it has become a common practice for the police officers to routinely and mechanically proceed to register an FIR for both the offences i.e. criminal breach of trust and cheating on a mere allegation of some dishonesty or fraud, without any proper application of mind. 43. It is high time that the police officers across the country are imparted proper training in law so as to understand the fine distinction between the offence of cheating viz-a-viz criminal breach of trust. Both offences are independent and distinct. The two offences cannot coexist simultaneously in the same set of facts. They are antithetical to each other. The two provisions of the IPC (now BNS, 2023) are not twins that they cannot survive without each other."" In the aforesaid circumstances, impugned order dated 28.07.2023 passed in Complaint Case No.4581 of 2021 (Chattu Vs. Kapil Muni Rai and others) under Sections 323, 447 I.P.C., Police Station- Gola, District-Gorakhpur, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Gorakhpur does not survive and accordingly it is hereby set aside, however, since this order is being passed without issuing notice to opposite party No.2, therefore, matter is remitted back to pass fresh order. Learned Magistrate will also consider the legal issue in regard to Section 468 Cr.P.C. on basis of facts of this case.
Arguments
Sri Bindeshwari Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for applicants submits that impugned order passed under Section 204 Cr.P.C. is bereft of requisite reasons that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against applicants under Sections 323, 447 I.P.C. as well as cognizance on application filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 21.12.2021, which could be barred in terms of Section 468 Cr.P.C., since alleged occurrence took place in December, 2019. In order to appreciate above submissions, I have carefully perused the impugned order, which is reproduced hereinafter :- "ददिनननांक- 28.07.2023 पतनवलली आदिदेशनरर दनयत हहै। पररिवनदिली कदे दवदनन अधधिवकन कको पपूवर दनयत दतधर परि ससुनन एवनां आदिदेश हदेतसु पतनवलली कन दकयन। अवलकोकन पररिवनदिली दनरिन अपनदे बयनन धिनरिन- 200 दिनां०प्र०सनां० मम करन दकयन गयन हहै दक हमम पटन दमलन रन बनउन्डडली करिननदे परि दवपकली कदपल मसुदन , सपूरिज, धिलीरिज, शनरिदिन व पपूजन जको हमनरिदे गननांव कदे हहै, वको भड़क गए तरन मसुझदे मनरिनदे पलीटनदे लगदे औरि इन लकोगको नदे मदेरिदे पटदे ककी जमलीन परि कब्जन करि धलयन। ददिसम्बरि 2019 मम कब्जन दकयन रन। जब हमनदे कब्जन हटननदे कको कहन तको हमम मनरिन पलीटन रन। यदे लकोग हमम कई बनरि मनरि चसुकदे हहै। धजनकदे सनांबनांधि मम मसुकदिमन दिजर हहै। धिनरिन- 202 दिनां०प्र०सनां० मम पली०डब्लपू०-1 आदिदेश प्रसनदि कको परिलीदकत करिनयन हहै तरन दिस्तनवदेजली सनक्ष्य मम गनम सभन दनरिन प्रनरर्थी कदे भपूदम पटन हदेतसु प्रस्तनवनन , वररिष्ठ पसुधलस अधिलीकक कको प्रदेदषित प्रनररऩन पत, अपरि पसुधलस महनदनदिदेशक कको प्रदेदषित प्रनररनन पत ककी रिधजस्टडली, रिसलीदि, व अऩ्य प्रपत इत्यनददि दिनधखिल दकयन गयन हहै। पररिवनदिली दनरिन अपनदे बयनन अऩ्तगरत धिनरिन- 200 दिनां०प्र०सनां० कदे तहत पररिवनदिली पत कन समररन दकयन गयन हहै। इस तथ्य कन समररन पररिवनदिली ककी तरिफ सदे प्रस्तसुत सनकलीगण नदे अपनदे बयनन अन्तगरत धिनरिन 202 दिनां०प्र०सनां० मम दकयन हहै। पररिवनदिली व उसककी तरिफ सदे प्रस्तसुत सनकलीगण कदे बयनन कदे आधिनरि परि अदभयसुकगण कदपल मसुदन, ससुरिज, धिलीरिज, शनरिदिन दिदेवली व पपूजन कदे दवरूद्ध धिनरिन - 323, 447 भन०दिनां०सनां० कदे तहत प्ररम दृष्टयन मनमलन बनतन हहै। अतएव उपरिकोक अदभयसुकगण तलब दकयदे जननदे यकोग्य हहै। अन्य धिनरिनओनां मम अदभयसुकगण तलब दकयदे जननदे कन प्ररम दृष्टयन आधिनरि पयनरप्त नहहीं हहै। आदिदेश अदभयसुकगण कदपल मसुदन, ससुरिज, धिलीरिज, शनरिदिन दिदेवली व पपूजन धिनरिन - 323, 447 भन०दिनां०सनां० कदे तहत जररिए सम्मन आहहत दकयन जनतन हहै। पररिवनदिली दनरिन धिनरिन - 204(2) तरन (4) कन अनसुपनलन करिनदे परि अदभयसुकगण कदे दवरूद्ध सम्मन जनरिली हको। पररिवनदिली इस सनांबनांधि मम आवश्यक पहैरिवली करिम। पतनवलली वनस्तदे उपसस्रदत अदभयसुकगण ददिनननांक – 04.09.2023 कको पदेश हको।" At this stage, I find merit in first argument of learned counsel for applicants that above referred impugned order has not assigned requisite reasons that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against applicants. Learned Magistrate has even not mentioned about contents of statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. even in brief, therefore, impugned order is in teeth of judgment passed by Supreme Court in case of Lalankumar Singh and others Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1383 and Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Anr., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2248. For reference the relevant paragraphs thereof are reproduced hereinafter :- "L alankumar Singh and others "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.
Decision
Accordingly, application is disposed of with aforesaid observation. Order Date :- 10.9.2024 P. Pandey