Ram Chandra v. State Of Up

Factual and Procedural Background

This is an application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. for quashing an order dated 6-2-1993 passed by the IIIrd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faizabad. An FIR was lodged against the applicants under Sections 147/148/323/325/504/506, I.P.C., at Police Station Kumarganj, District Faizabad, and the matter was under police investigation. The Investigating Officer moved an application before the Magistrate (annexed to the petition) asserting that, on perusal of the case-diary and an X-ray report, a fracture in the skull bone was revealed and that an offence under Section 308, I.P.C. appeared to have been committed; the IO sought incorporation of Section 308 and prayed that the applicants be summoned so that arrest and bail proceedings under Section 308 could be completed. The learned Magistrate, by order dated 6-2-1993, summoned the accused applicants for 20-2-1993. The present petition challenges that order.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Magistrate could validly direct the applicants to be present in court (summon them) under Section 308, I.P.C. where, on the material before the Magistrate, an offence punishable under Section 308 did not appear to have been committed.
2. Whether the proper course was for the Investigating Officer to file a charge-sheet adding Section 308, I.P.C., before the Magistrate took steps (such as summoning the accused) in relation to that section.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

• On the materials then on record, no offence under Section 308, I.P.C. appeared to have been committed by the applicants.
• The FIR was registered under Sections 147/148/323/325/504/506, I.P.C., and the Magistrate had no evidence before him to conclude that Section 308 applied.
• The Investigating Officer's application to incorporate Section 308 was based on the case-diary and an X-ray report, but until a charge-sheet adding Section 308 was filed, the Magistrate could not validly summon the accused on that section.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court considered the record and the Magistrate's order. It noted that the FIR initially invoked Sections 147/148/323/325/504/506, I.P.C. and that the Investigating Officer had applied to add Section 308, I.P.C. on the basis of the case-diary and an X-ray report indicating a skull fracture. The court observed that, at the time the Magistrate made the impugned order, there was nothing on the record before the Magistrate to show that an offence punishable under Section 308, I.P.C. appeared to have been committed by the applicants.

The Magistrate's order itself (dated 6-2-1993) indicated uncertainty—stating it was not apparent whether investigation under Section 308 was going on or whether any charge-sheet had been submitted—but nevertheless summoned the accused. The court held that the procedure adopted by the Magistrate was impermissible: unless an offence under Section 308 appears to have been committed by the accused, the Magistrate could not direct their presence in court on that ground. The proper course, the court reasoned, is for the Investigating Officer to file a charge-sheet adding Section 308; only then could the Magistrate consider what steps to take in relation to that section.

Holding and Implications

The application under Section 482/439 is allowed and the order dated 6-2-1993 passed by the IIIrd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faizabad is quashed.

Consequences: The quashing removes the Magistrate's direction summoning the applicants (for 20-2-1993) insofar as it was founded on Section 308, I.P.C. The court made clear that it will be open to the learned Magistrate to take appropriate proceedings after the Investigating Officer files a charge-sheet adding Section 308, I.P.C. The opinion does not state any broader precedent beyond the immediate effect on the impugned order.