High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:140137 Court No. - 74 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 15402 of 2024 Applicant :- Savita Gupta And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Aditya Kant Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J. 1. Heard Sri Aditya Kant Sharma, learned counsel for applicants. 2. Applicants before this Court are women who have been summoned by impugned order dated 1.7.2022 passed under Section 204 Cr.P.C. to face trial under Sections 323, 448, 504 and 506 I.P.C. Impugned order is reproduced hereinafter: " आददेश /01.07.2022 पतत्रावलली पदेश हहई। ससुनत्रा व अवललोकन, ककयत्रा। पररिवत्राद पत मय शपथ पत मम ककयदे गयदे कथन सकदेप मम इस प्रकत्रारि हह कक प्रत्रारथरयत्रा फ्ललैट ननं० 805 व 806 टत्रावरि ननं० 3 पत्रारिस कटयरित्रा सलैक्टरि -137 नलोएडत्रा सलैक्टरि -142 नलोएडत्रा रजिलत्रा गगौतमबसुद्धनगरि ककी कनवत्रासली हलै। प्ररथरयत्रा अपनदे 11 वरर्षीय पसुत कदे सत्राथ कवगत 3 वररनं सदे रिह रिहली हलै। प्रत्रारथरयत्रा ककी पडलोसली बबलीतत्रा व उसककी मत्रातत्रा आयदे कदन तनंग व परिदेशत्रान करितली रिहतली हलै। कदनत्रानंक 06.12.2021 कलो प्रत्रारथरयत्रा कदे पसुत कत्रा जिन्म कदन हलोनदे कदे कत्रारिण प्रत्रारथरयत्रा अपनदे घरि मम- पपूजित्रा करिवत्रा रिहली थली तलो समय करिलीब 12 बजिदे कदन बबलीतत्रा व उसककी मत्रातत्रा अपनदे जित्रान पहचत्रान कदे दलो अन्य व्यकक्तिययों कदे सत्राथ उनकदे फ्ललैट मम घसुस आयली औरि गत्रालली गलगौच करितदे हहए पपूजित्रा मम कवघ्न डत्रालनदे लगली तथत्रा मत्रारिपलीट शसुरू करि दली व जित्रान सदे मत्रारिनदे ककी धमककी दली। पररिवत्राकदनली नदे अपनदे प्रत्राथरनत्रा पत कदे समथरन मम पसुरलस आयसुक्ति, नलोएडत्रा.गगौतमबसुद्धनगरि कलो कदयदे गयदे प्रत्राथरनत्रा पत ककी प्रकत, डत्राक रिसलीद, थत्रानत्राध्यक, थत्रानत्रा सपूरिजिपसुरि, गगौतमबसुद्धनगरि कलो कदयदे गयदे प्रत्राथरनत्रा पत ककी प्रकत , जिनरिल मलैनदेजिरि, फदे रसरलटली कवभत्राग पत्रारिस कटयरित्रा, नलोएडत्रा कलो कदयदे गयदे प्रत्राथरनत्रा पत ककी प्रकत, डत्राक रिसलीद ककी प्रकत, ललीगल नलोकटस ककी प्रकत, आधत्रारि कत्राडर ककी छत्रायत्रानं प्रकत प्रस्तसुत ककी गयली। पररिवत्राकदनली कदे बयत्रान अनंतगरत धत्रारित्रा 200 दनं०प्र०सनं० व सत्राकली सन्दलीप मसुखजिर्षी व जिसुलली नत्रायरि कदे बयत्रान अनंतगरत धत्रारित्रा 202 दनं०प्र०सनं० अनंककत ककयदे गयदे रजिसमम उन्हलोनदे प्रत्राथरनत्रा पत मम ककयदे गयदे कथनयों कत्रा समथरन ककयत्रा। अततः पररिवत्राद पत एवनं प्रस्तसुत सत्राक्ष्य कदे अवललोकन सदे प्रथम दृष्टयत्रा कवपकलीगण बबलीतत्रा गसुपत्रा व सकवतत्रा गसुपत्रा (बबलीतत्रा ककी मत्रातत्रा) कलो धत्रारित्रा 323,448,504,506 भत्रा०दनं०सनं० कदे अनंतगरत तलब ककयदे जित्रानदे कत्रा आधत्रारि पयत्रारप हलै। आददेश कवपकलीगण बबलीतत्रा गसुपत्रा व सकवतत्रा गसुपत्रा (बबलीतत्रा ककी मत्रातत्रा ) कलो धत्रारित्रा 323,448,504,506 भत्रा०दनं०सनं० कदे अपरित्राध हदेतसु दत्रारित्रा समन तलब ककयत्रा जित्रातत्रा हलै। पररिवत्रादली कनयमत्रानसुसत्रारि पलैरिवली अनंदरि एक सपत्राह करिम। पतत्रावलली वत्रास्तदे हत्रारजिरिली कदनत्रानंक 20.07.2022 कलो पदेश हलो। 3. In pursuance of aforesaid order, applicants have already appeared before
Facts
learned Trial Court and have been granted bail. However, trial has not reached up to the stage of Section 244 Cr.P.C. 4. Learned counsel for applicants submitted that case of complainant as mentioned in complaint was not supported in her statement recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. that no allegation of assault was made. For reference, said statement is reproduced hereinafter: "Statement U/S 200 Cr.P.C.
Legal Reasoning
contain detailed reasons. A fortiori, the order would be bad in law if the reason given turns out to be ex facie incorrect." (Emphasis supplied)" 11. In aforesaid circumstances, since application of mind does not appear to exist in the above referred impugned order and contents of statement have been skipped by learned Trial Court, therefore, impugned order dated 1.7.2022 passed by learned Civil Judge (J.D)/FTC Ist, Gautam Buddh Nagar in Complaint Case No.609 of 2022, (Smt. Shalini Mishra Vs. Babita Gupta & Ors) under Sections 323, 448, 504 and 506 I.P.C., P.S. Sector 142, Noida Commissionerate, District-Gautam Budh Nagar is in the teeth of Delhi Race Club (supra) and is hereby set-aside and since this application is decided without issuing notice to O.P. No.2, therefore, this application is remanded back to learned Trial Court to decide it a fresh within a period of three months from today after hearing the complainant and taking note of observations made in Delhi Race Club (supra).
Arguments
Name-Shalini Mishra Age-42 Years Fathers Name- J.C. Srivastava Address- Paras Tiera Noida Sec. 137, Flat No. 806/805 On Oath नं वहत्रानं मह 4 सत्राल सदे रिह रिहली हह नं। जिलो हमत्रारिदे नलीचदे flat No.706 मम रिहतदे हह मह जिहत्रानं रिहतली हह इन्हयोंनदे हमत्रारिदे रखलत्राफ Paras Tiera facility मम Complain करिली कक हमत्रारित्रा बच्चत्रा भत्रागतत्रा हलै, खदेलतत्रा हलै, आवत्राजि आतली हलै तलो बहहत शलोरि करितदे हलो रजिससदे उनककी तबलीयत खरित्राब हलो जित्राएगली। इसकदे बत्राद वलो हमत्रारिदे घरि आकरि लड़नदे लगदे। हमत्रारिदे बत्रारिदे मम Society कदे Whats App परि गन्ददे messages भदेजितली थली। 06.12.2021 कलो जिब हम अपनदे बच्चदे कत्रा बथरडदे Celebrate करि रिहदे थदे तलो उन्हयोंनदे हमत्रारिदे घरि आकरि बहहत abuse ककयत्रा। वलो allegation लगत्रातदे हह कक हम उनककी मत्रानं कलो मत्रारिनत्रा चत्राहतदे हह। इन सबकदे बत्राद हम सब डरि मम रिह रिहदे हह। हमम समय समय परि धमककी भली ददेकरि गई हलै।" 5. Learned counsel for applicants further submitted that in statement of witnesses recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. there is a reference of assault also. 6. In above background, learned counsel for applicants submitted that in above referred order, learned Trial Court has not considered contents of statement recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. Statements are also not mentioned in brief, as such the observation that complainant has supported her case in the complaint is contrary to records. 7. In above background, learned counsel for applicants submitted that attending circumstances that earlier applicants have lodged a complaint in the Society against complainant as well as subsequently also a criminal complainant was filed, though it was later on rejected. 8. In order to appreciate above submissions, I have carefully perused impugned order as well as statement of complainant recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. 9. The process of summoning is a very serious process since its consequence are penal, therefore, words used in Section 204 Cr.P.C. that there are sufficient ground to proceed has its importance that there must be an application of mind since learned Magistrate himself has conducted an inquiry and taken statements on oath. However, in present case as referred above, even in brief, contents of statement has not been mentioned in the impugned order, therefore, it was skipped as complainant has not mentioned about occurrence of assault in her statement recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. 10. At this stage Court also takes note of judgment passed by Supreme Court in Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr, 2024 INSC 626, wherein observations made in Mehmood Ul Rehman Vs. Khazir Mohammad Tunda reported in 2015 (12) SCC 420 was further approved and it was held in paragraphs no.21, 22 and 23 which are reproduced hereinafter: "21. The Principle of law discernible from the aforesaid decision is that issuance of summons is a serious matter and, therefore, should not be done mechanically and it should be done only upon satisfaction on the ground for proceeding further in the matter against a person concerned based on the materials collected during the inquiry. 22. In the aforesaid circumstances, the next question to be considered is whether a summons issued by a Magistrate can be interfered with in exercise of the power under Section 482, CrPC. In the decisions in Bhushan Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2012) 5 SCC 424 and Pepsi Foods Ltd. (supra), this Court held that a petition filed under Section 482, CrPC, for quashing an order summoning the accused is maintainable. There cannot be any doubt that once it is held that sine qua non for exercise of the power to issue summons is the subjective satisfaction "on the ground for proceeding further" while exercising the power to consider the legality of a summons issued by a Magistrate, certainly it is the duty of the Court to look into the question as to whether the learned Magistrate had applied his mind to form an opinion as to the existence of sufficient ground for proceeding further and in that regard to issue summons to face the trial for the offence concerned. In this context, we think it appropriate to state that one should understand that 'taking cognizance', empowered under Section 190, CrPC, and 'issuing process', empowered under Section 204, CrPC, are different and distinct. [See the decision in Sunil Bharti Mittal v. C.B.I. : (2015) 4 SCC 609]. 23. In Sunil Bharti Mittal (supra), this Court interpreted the expression "sufficient grounds for proceeding" and held that there should be sufficiency of materials against the accused concerned before proceeding under Section 204 of the CrPC. It was held thus:- "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
Decision
12. With aforesaid direction, this application is disposed of. 13. Registrar (Compliance) to take steps. Order Date :- 30.8.2024 SB