Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:175222
Reserved Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17737 of 2024
Applicant :- Jyoti Deshwal Yadav And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Vinod Singh,Vivek Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sanjay Srivastava
Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of entire proceedings, including summoning order dated 22.03.2024, of Complaint Case No. 4647 of 2023 (Krishn Pal Yadav Vs. Rajveer Singh and others), under Sections 406, 504, 420, 323 IPC, P.S.- Kavinagar, District- Ghaziabad, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.5, Ghaziabad.
3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the complainant is father-in-law of applicant No.1. The marriage of applicant No.1 with son of opposite party no.2 / complainant has taken place about 11 years prior to the incident. Earlier, the husband of applicant No.1 has filed a case under Section 13(1) Hindu Marriage Act for divorce and one case was filed for custody of child and a Habeas corpus petition was also filed regarding custody of child. The opposite party No.2 has moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. making false and baseless allegations. On that application, police have submitted a report that the allegations made in the application are false and no such incident has taken place and the dispute between the parties is civil in nature but the application of opposite party No.2 was registered
1
as a complaint case and thereafter applicants have been summoned vide impugned summoning order dated 22.03.2024.
4. Learned counsel further submitted that the impugned summoning order has been passed in a mechanical manner without applying judicial mind. Learned Magistrate has merely observed that he has perused the statement under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and referring to law laid down in case of Fiona Shrikhande Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2014 SC 957, summoned the applicants. It was submitted that impugned proceedings are malafide and instituted to wreck vengeance upon the applicants and thus, the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed.
5. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 have opposed the application and submitted that in view of allegations made in the complaint and statement of complainant as well as of witnesses, a prima-facie case is made out against the applicants. It was submitted that applicants used to do 'tantra- mantra' upon son of opposite party No.2 and applicant No.1 has started giving slow poison to the son of opposite party no.2 in his food and this fact is supported by medical evidence. Due to this reason, the opposite party No.2 was admitted in hospital. Learned counsel has referred contents of complainant and the averments of counter affidavit and submitted that a prima-facie case is made out against the applicants.
6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.
7. Perusal of record shows that in the impugned summoning order, learned Magistrate has merely mentioned that he has perused the complaint, statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and mentioning the case of Fiona Shrikhande Vs. State of
2
Maharashtra, AIR 2014 SC 957, held that a prima-facie case under Sections 406, 504, 420, 323 IPC is made out and summoned the applicants. It is correct that at the stage of summoning the Magistrate is mainly concerned with allegations made out in the complaint and has only to prima-facie satisfy whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused and that he is not required to make detail discussions on merits and demerits but it does not mean that a summoning order can be passed in such a casual manner that by mentioning a bald sentence that statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. were perused and a prima-facie case is made out. The Magistrate is not required to record detailed reasons at the stage of summoning but at least summoning order must reflect that the Magistrate has applied his mind to the complaint, statement of complainant, statements of witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and other material on record. As observed in case of Pepsi Food Limited and Anr. Vs Special Judicial Magistrate and Ors.; (1998) 5 SCC 749, that 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. Recently in case of Deepak Gaba and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 3, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that even though at the stage of issuing process to the
3
accused, the Magistrate is not required to record detailed reasons, there should be adequate evidence on record to set the criminal proceedings into motion. The requirement of Section 204 of the Code is that the Magistrate should carefully scrutinize the evidence brought on record. Only upon being satisfied that there is sufficient ground for summoning the accused to stand the trial, summons should be issued. Further, summoning order is to be passed when the complaint discloses the offence and when there is material that supports and constitutes essential ingredients of the offence. It should not be passed lightly or as a matter of course.
8. In the impugned summoning order, there is absolutely nothing that learned Magistrate has applied his judicial mind to the aforesaid material. Even it has not been considered by learned Magistrate whether the ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 406, 504, 420, 323 IPC, for which applicants have been summoned, are satisfied. The impugned summoning order does not satisfy the legal requirement as discussed above.
9. In view of aforesaid the prayer for quashing of entire proceedings is refused but the impugned summoning order is set aside and matter is remanded back to the learned Magistrate concerned to pass an order on point of summoning afresh in accordance with law.
10. Application under section 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of.
Order Date :- 8.11.2024 SP/-
4