Supreme Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:154144 Court No. - 74 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16432 of 2024 Applicant :- Amrit Pal Singh @ Kalu And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Jitendra Singh,Sunil Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J. 1. Heard Sri Ram Sajeevan Prajapati, Advocate holding brief of Sri Sunil Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for applicants and perused the record. 2. This Court has again encountered with an unreasoned impugned summoning order wherein neither facts nor date of occurrence nor contents of complaint nor contents of statements recorded are mentioned and still applicants are summoned. For reference, impugned order dated 11.03.2022 passed by Judicial Magistrate/ Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. 09, Agra, is reproduced hereinafter-: “पतत्रावलली पपेश ककी गयली। पपुकत्रार पर पररवत्रादलीयत्रा कपे ववदत्रान अधधिवकत्रा उपससस्थित। पररवत्रादलीयत्रा कपे ववदत्रान अधधिवकत्रा कको तलबली कपे वबन्दपु पर सपुनत्रा जत्रा चपुकत्रा हहै। पतत्रावलली आज आदपेशत्रास्थिर पपेश ककी गयली हहै। वत्रावदयत्रा शलीमतली गपुरपलीत ककौर ककी ओर सपे यह पररवत्राद ववपकलीगण कको धित्रारत्रा -406, भत्रा.दद.स. मम तलब वकयपे जत्रानपे ककी यत्राचनत्रा करतपे हहयपे पसतपुत वकयत्रा गयत्रा हहै। पररवत्राद पत कपे समस्थिरन मम पररवत्रावदयत्रा दत्रारत्रा धित्रारत्रा 200 दद०प०सद० कपे तहत सवयद कत्रा बयत्रान अदवकत करत्रायत्रा गयत्रा हहै धजसमपे उसनपे पररवत्राद पत कपे कस्थिननों कत्रा आद वशक समस्थिरन वकयत्रा हहै। पररवत्रावदयत्रा ककी ओर सपे धित्रारत्रा 202 द०प०सद० कपे तहत पली०डब्ल्यय 01 शली अश्वन धसदह, पली०डब्ल्यय 02 शलीमतली हरपलीत ककौर कपे सत्राक्ष्य अदवकत करत्रायपे गए हहै। पररवत्रावदयत्रा कपे ववदत्रान अधधिवकत्रा कको सपुनत्रा जत्रा चपुकत्रा हहै। पररवत्रादली दत्रारत्रा पसतपुत सत्राक्ष्य कत्रा सम्यक पररशलीलन वकयत्रा। पररवत्रावदयत्रा दत्रारत्रा पररवत्रादपत मम वकयपे गयपे कस्थिननों एवद पसतपुत वकयपे गयपे सत्राक्ष्य कपे अवलकोकन कपे पश्चत्रात न्यत्रायत्रालय ककी रत्राय मम ववपकलीगण सद० 1,2 व 3 शली अममृतपत्राल धसदह, शली करतत्रार धसदह तस्थित्रा शली हरजलीत धसदह उरर मकोन्टय दत्रारत्रा धित्रारत्रा -406. भत्रा.द.सद. कत्रा अपरत्राधि पस्थिम दृष्टयत्रा कत्राररत वकयत्रा जत्रानत्रा पतलीत हकोतत्रा हहै। उपरकोक धित्रारत्राओद मम ववपकलीगण कपे ववरूद्ध मत्रामलत्रा पस्थिम दृष्टत्रा बनतत्रा पतलीत हकोतत्रा हहै। तदद नपुसत्रार ववपकलीगण कको उपरकोक धित्रारत्राओद मम तलब करनपे हपेतपु पयत्रारप्त सत्राक्ष्य पतत्रावलली पर उपलब्धि हहै। अवभयपुकगण उपरकोक ववचत्रारण हपेतपु तलब वकयपे जत्रानपे यकोग्य हहै। आदपेश अवभयपुकगण शली अममृतपत्राल धसदह, शली करतत्रार धसदह तस्थित्रा शली हरजलीत धसदह उरर मकोन्टय दत्रारत्रा धित्रारत्रा -406, भत्रा.द.सद. कपे अपरत्राधि मम ववचत्रारण हपेतपु जररयपे समन तलब वकयत्रा जत्रातत्रा हहै पररवत्रादली वत्रादवछित पहैरवली अन्दर सत्रात वदवस दत्राधखिल करम। पतत्रावलली वत्रासतपे हत्राधजरली वदनत्रादक 11.04.2022 कको पपेश हको।" 3. This Court has already taken a serious note of similar summoning order passed in the case of 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 -: "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
Legal Reasoning
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 can be exercised. 6. Accordingly, impugned order dated 11.03.2022 passed by Judicial Magistrate/ Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. 09, Agra in Complaint Case No. 9856 of 2020 (Smt. Gurpreet Kaur vs. Shri Amrit Pal Singh alias Kalu and others), under Section 406 IPC, Police Station Sadar, District Agra, is hereby set aside. Matter is remitted back to Trial Court concerned to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after hearing complainant only as well as taking note of judgments passed by Supreme Court in Lalankumar Singh (supara) and Mohammad Wajid and another vs. State of U.P. and others, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 951, expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from today, if there is no legal impediment.
Decision
7. With aforesaid observations/ directions, the application is disposed of. 8. A copy of this order be sent to Hon'ble Administrative Judge, Agra in regard to nature of order passed by concerned Officer. 9. Registrar (Compliance) to take steps. Order Date :- 21.9.2024 AK