High Court · 2025

3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the opposite party No. 2/complainant is mother-in-law of applicant. The marriage of applicant with son of the complainant has taken place in the year 2018 and she was harassed by her husband and his family members. On 12.12.2022 the applicant has lodged a first information report against the complainant and others for the offence under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act and in the said first information report inter-alia it was alleged that on 29.08.2022 she was turned out from matrimonial home. The applicant has also filed a case under Domestic Violence Act against her husband and his family members. The impugned complaint has been lodged by the complainant in the month of March, 2023, making allegations that on 29.08.2022 applicant has taken away jewellery and cash of Rs. 1,50,000/- from her matrimonial home. Learned counsel submitted that the impugned proceedings have been initiated as counterblast to the cases lodged by the applicant. In her statement, recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C., the complainant has made merely a vague allegation that applicant has gone away by taking said articles. The complainant has not clarified that what articles/jewellery was taken away by the applicant. It was submitted that learned Magistrate has not considered facts of the matter in correct perspective and the impugned summoning order has been passed in a routine manner and thus, the same is liable to be set aside.

4. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 have opposed the application and submitted that in view of the allegations made in the complaint and in the statement of complainant, recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C., as well as in the statements of witnesses, recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C., a prima facie case is made out against the applicant. It was further submitted that the complainant is a senior citizen and she is suffering from cancer and she has made clear allegations that applicant has taken away jewellery and cash from her matrimonial home.

5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

6. It is well settled that at the stage of issuing process under Section 204 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate is mainly concerned with the allegations made in the complaint and evidence led in support of the same. The Magistrate has to be satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for proceedings against the accused. In Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Another v. Special Judicial Magistrate and Others (1998) 5 SCC 749, the Supreme Court has held that summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter and that the order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and law governing the issue. In para (28), it was held as under:- "28. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. The Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused."

7. The principle that summoning an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter and that as a matter of course the criminal case against a person cannot be set into motion was also reiterated in GHCL Employees Stock Option Trust v. India Infoline Limited (2013) 4 SCC 505. 36. To be summoned/to appear before the Criminal Court as an accused is a serious matter affecting one's dignity and reputation in the society. In taking recourse to such a serious matter in summoning the accused in a case filed on a complaint otherwise than on a police report, there has to be application of mind as to whether the allegations in the complaint constitute essential ingredients of the offence and whether there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused.

8. In Punjab National Bank and Others v. Surendra Prasad Sinha 1993 Supp (1) SCC 499, it was held that the issuance of process should not be mechanical nor should be made an instrument of oppression or needless harassment. At the stage of issuance of process to the accused, the Magistrate is not required to record detailed orders. But based on the allegations made in the complaint or the evidence led in support of the same, the Magistrate is to be prima facie satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused.

9. Similarly this Court in the case of Smt. Shiv Kumar and others vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in 2017 (2) JIC, 589, (All) (LB) held as under:- "Learned Magistrate was required to atleast mention in the order about the prima facie satisfaction for summoning the accused. The order must reflect that the learned Magistrate has exercised his jurisdiction in accordance with law after satisfying himself about the prima facie allegations made in the complaint. The accused cannot be summoned mechanically merely by writing that perused the statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C."

10. In the instant matter perusal of record shows that the impugned complaint has been lodged by the mother-in-law of applicant and the main allegation in the impugned complaint is that on

29.08.2022 she has taken away jewellery and cash of Rs. 1,50,000/- from her matrimonial home. It was shown that earlier applicant has lodged a first information report against the complainant and others for the offence under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act and in the said first information report it was alleged that on 29.08.2022 she was turned out from matrimonial home. The applicant has also filed a case under Domestic Violence Act against her husband and his family members. It would be relevant to mention that there is no evidence that the applicant was entrusted with the alleged jewellery or cash. In her statement, under Section 200 Cr.P.C., the complainant has merely made a vague allegation that there was litigation between applicant and her husband and she has lodged three cases and that she, along with her mother and brother, took away articles and refused to return the same. No detail of any article or jewellery has been given in statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Similarly, there is no allegation in the statement under Section 202 Cr.P.C. that applicant has taken away any cash from matrimonial home. It appears that learned Magistrate has not considered the material on record in correct perspective and impugned summoning order has been passed in a mechanical manner. It is correct that at the time of summoning, detail reasons are not required but the summoning order must reflect application of judicial mind. Learned Magistrate must have considered whether there is material to satisfy the ingredients of offence under Section 406 IPC. In view of aforesaid facts, it is apparent that impugned summoning order has been passed in a routine manner without considering facts and position of law and thus, the impugned summoning order is liable to be set aside.

11. In view of aforesaid, the impugned summoning order dated

08.09.2023, passed the A.C.J.M., Court No. 2, Agra is hereby set aside and matter is remanded back to learned Magistrate to pass an order afresh, in accordance with law.

12. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of in above terms. Order Date :- 6.2.2025 Anand ANAND VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the opposite party No. 2/complainant is mother-in-law of applicant. The marriage of applicant with son of the complainant has taken place in the year 2018 and she was harassed by her husband and his family members. On 12.12.2022 the applicant has lodged a first information report against the complainant and others for the offence under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act and in the said first information report inter-alia it was alleged that on 29.08.2022 she was turned out from matrimonial home. The applicant has also filed a case under Domestic Violence Act against her husband and his family members. The impugned complaint has been lodged by the complainant in the month of March, 2023, making allegations that on 29.08.2022 applicant has taken away jewellery and cash of Rs. 1,50,000/- from her matrimonial home. Learned counsel submitted that the impugned proceedings have been initiated as counterblast to the cases lodged by the applicant. In her statement, recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C., the complainant has made merely a vague allegation that applicant has gone away by taking said articles. The complainant has not clarified that what articles/jewellery was taken away by the applicant. It was submitted that learned Magistrate has not considered facts of the matter in correct perspective and the impugned summoning order has been passed in a routine manner and thus, the same is liable to be set aside.

4. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 have opposed the application and submitted that in view of the allegations made in the complaint and in the statement of complainant, recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C., as well as in the statements of witnesses, recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C., a prima facie case is made out against the applicant. It was further submitted that the complainant is a senior citizen and she is suffering from cancer and she has made clear allegations that applicant has taken away jewellery and cash from her matrimonial home.

5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

6. It is well settled that at the stage of issuing process under Section 204 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate is mainly concerned with the allegations made in the complaint and evidence led in support of the same. The Magistrate has to be satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for proceedings against the accused. In Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Another v. Special Judicial Magistrate and Others (1998) 5 SCC 749, the Supreme Court has held that summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter and that the order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and law governing the issue. In para (28), it was held as under:- "28. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. The Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused."

7. The principle that summoning an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter and that as a matter of course the criminal case against a person cannot be set into motion was also reiterated in GHCL Employees Stock Option Trust v. India Infoline Limited (2013) 4 SCC 505. 36. To be summoned/to appear before the Criminal Court as an accused is a serious matter affecting one's dignity and reputation in the society. In taking recourse to such a serious matter in summoning the accused in a case filed on a complaint otherwise than on a police report, there has to be application of mind as to whether the allegations in the complaint constitute essential ingredients of the offence and whether there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused.

8. In Punjab National Bank and Others v. Surendra Prasad Sinha 1993 Supp (1) SCC 499, it was held that the issuance of process should not be mechanical nor should be made an instrument of oppression or needless harassment. At the stage of issuance of process to the accused, the Magistrate is not required to record detailed orders. But based on the allegations made in the complaint or the evidence led in support of the same, the Magistrate is to be prima facie satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused.

9. Similarly this Court in the case of Smt. Shiv Kumar and others vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in 2017 (2) JIC, 589, (All) (LB) held as under:- "Learned Magistrate was required to atleast mention in the order about the prima facie satisfaction for summoning the accused. The order must reflect that the learned Magistrate has exercised his jurisdiction in accordance with law after satisfying himself about the prima facie allegations made in the complaint. The accused cannot be summoned mechanically merely by writing that perused the statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C."

10. In the instant matter perusal of record shows that the impugned complaint has been lodged by the mother-in-law of applicant and the main allegation in the impugned complaint is that on

29.08.2022 she has taken away jewellery and cash of Rs. 1,50,000/- from her matrimonial home. It was shown that earlier applicant has lodged a first information report against the complainant and others for the offence under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act and in the said first information report it was alleged that on 29.08.2022 she was turned out from matrimonial home. The applicant has also filed a case under Domestic Violence Act against her husband and his family members. It would be relevant to mention that there is no evidence that the applicant was entrusted with the alleged jewellery or cash. In her statement, under Section 200 Cr.P.C., the complainant has merely made a vague allegation that there was litigation between applicant and her husband and she has lodged three cases and that she, along with her mother and brother, took away articles and refused to return the same. No detail of any article or jewellery has been given in statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Similarly, there is no allegation in the statement under Section 202 Cr.P.C. that applicant has taken away any cash from matrimonial home. It appears that learned Magistrate has not considered the material on record in correct perspective and impugned summoning order has been passed in a mechanical manner. It is correct that at the time of summoning, detail reasons are not required but the summoning order must reflect application of judicial mind. Learned Magistrate must have considered whether there is material to satisfy the ingredients of offence under Section 406 IPC. In view of aforesaid facts, it is apparent that impugned summoning order has been passed in a routine manner without considering facts and position of law and thus, the impugned summoning order is liable to be set aside.

11. In view of aforesaid, the impugned summoning order dated

08.09.2023, passed the A.C.J.M., Court No. 2, Agra is hereby set aside and matter is remanded back to learned Magistrate to pass an order afresh, in accordance with law.

12. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of in above terms. Order Date :- 6.2.2025 Anand ANAND VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad