Allahabad High Court
Siddharth Chaddha And 8 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 6 August, 2024
Author: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:126579 Court No. - 74 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 14146 of 2024 Applicant :- Siddharth Chaddha And 8 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajiv Lochan Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- Anurag Vajpeyi,G.A.,Praveen Kumar Singh with Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19425 of 2024 Applicant :- Sri Aditya Sah And 8 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Durlabh Kumar Pandey,Rajesh Chandra Dwivedi,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Praveen Kumar Singh Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1. Heard Sri C.L. Pandey, learned Senior Advocate assisted by S/Sri Durlabh Kumar Pandey, Rajesh Chandra Dwivedi and Satya Prakash Rai, Advocates and Sri Rajiv Lochan Shukla, learned counsel for applicants in both cases and Sri Manish Tiwari, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Praveen Kumar Singh, learned counsel for opposite party-2.
2. It is well settled that to pass a summoning order is a serious affair and it becomes more serious when it is passed under Section 204 Cr.P.C. as it is passed on basis of inquiry conducted by Magistrate itself on basis of statement recorded on oath under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C.
3. In this regard, relevant paragraphs of Lalankumar Singh and others Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1383 are mentioned hereinafter:
"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 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."
4. In present case, learned Magistrate, after recording contents of complaint, statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. as well as brief submissions and statements of learned counsel for complainant, vide impugned order dated 12.03.2024 in a very cursory manner summoned 18 persons in different offences ranging from 34, 35, 409, 420, 467, 468, 504, 506, 120-B IPC and relevant part of impugned order is quoted below -:
????? ?? ?????? ?? ??????? ?? ??????? ???????? ????? ?? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ????? ??? ???? ??? ?? ??????????? ?????? ?? ??? ???? ??????? ?? ???? ???? ?? ???? ?? ? ???????? ???????? ?? ?????? ?????? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ????? ????? ???? ??? ??? ???????? ?????? ?? ?????? ??? ???????? ?? ??????????? ?? ????? ?? ?????? ?? ??? ??? ????? ?????? ?????? ???????? ?? ?????? ???????? ?????? ?? ???? ? ???? ??? ??????? ?? ??? ??????? ????? ??? ???? ?????? ???????? ??? ?? ?????? ?? ??????? ?????? ?? ??????? ??????? ?? ?? ?? ?????? ????????? ???? ???? ???? ??????? ??? ???? ?????? ?????????? ???????? ?????? ?? ??????? ??? ???????????? ?? ?????? ?????? ??? ??? ?? ?????? ????, ???? ????? ???
???????? ?? ?????? ?????? ? ????????? ????????? ?? ???? ?? ?????????? ??? ?? ???????? ???????? ?? ????????? ??????? ?? ?????? ?? ??????? ???? ?? ??? ???? ??? ?? ????? ???? ??? ?????????? ?????? ?????????? ??? ?? ??????? ???? ??? ??????? ?? ??? ?????? ???? ???????? ? ?????????????? ????? ???? ??????? ???? ?? ???? ?? ??????? ????? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ??????? ??? ??????? ?? ?? ???? ?? ??? ??, ????? ?? ?????? ?? ??? ?? ?? ??? ?????????? ?????? ???, ???? ????? ???, ???? ???, ????? ???, ?????? ???, ??????? ???, ???? ???, ???? ???, ?????? ???, ????? ???, ???????? ?????????, ??? ?????????, ????? ????, ?????????? ?????, ????????? ?????, ?????? ????? ????, ???????? ???? ? ??????? ??? ?? ???? ??????? ?? ??? ???? ???? ?? ??? ?? ????? ????? ???? ???? ?????? ?? ??? ??? ??? ???????????? ???? ???, ?????? ???, ???? ???, ????? ???, ???? ???, ??????? ???, ???? ???, ?????? ??? ? ?????? ??? ?? ????- 34,35,409,420,467,468,504,506,120B IPC, ????????? ?????, ???????? ???? ? ????? ??? ?? ????- 420,120B, 504,506 IPC ?????????? ???????? ????????, ??? ????????, ????? ???? ????????, ?????????? ?????, ?????? ????? ???? ?? ???? 34,35,420, 467, 468, 504, 506, 120B IPC, ? ??????? ??? ?? ????- 504,506,120B IPC ?? ????? ???? ??? ?????????? ??????? ?? ?????? ???? ??? ???? ???? ?? ???? ???????? ???
????
???????????? ???? ???, ?????? ???, ???? ???, ????? ???, ???? ???, ??????? ???, ???? ???, ?????? ??? ? ?????? ??? ?? ???? - 34,35,409,420,467,468,504,506,120B IPC ????????? ?????, ???????? ???? ? ????? ??? ?? ????- 420,120B,504,506 IPC, ?????????? ???????? ????????, ??? ????????, ????? ???? ????????, ?????????? ?????, ?????? ????? ???? ?? ???? - 34,35,420,467,468,504,506,120B IPC, ? ??????? ??? ?? ???? - 504,506,120B IPC ?? ????? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ????? ????? ?????? 12.04.2024 ?? ???? ??? ???? ???? ???????? ?????? ????? ????? ?????? ??????
5. I find merit in argument of Learned Senior Advocate and learned counsel appearing for applicants that aforesaid impugned order is bereft of requisite reasoning. Entire order has been passed on basis of ??????? ??? ??? ??? i.e. 'it seems' whereas requirement of Section 204 Cr.P.C. is more that there must be 'sufficient grounds to proceed' which are absolutely missing in operative part of impugned order whereby as many as 18 persons were summoned in 3 different set of offences, however, such differentiation was not based on any reason whatsoever.
6. Aforesaid submissions, though opposed by learned Senior Advocate appearing for opposite party-2 but not able to convince this Court in view of Lalankumar Singh (supra) and nature of summoning order.
7. In above circumstances, I find it a fit case where inherent powers of this Court could be invoked.
8. Accordingly, impugned order dated 12.03.2024 in Complaint Case No. 15493/2024 (Vinay Didwania vs. Aditya Sah and others), Police Station- Bhelupur, District- Varanasi is hereby set aside and matter is remitted back to concerned trial Court to pass a fresh order after hearing complainant only, within a period of 2 months from today.
9. With above observations, both applications are disposed of.
10. Registrar (Compliance) to take steps.
Order Date :- 6.8.2024 N. Sinha