Allahabad High Court
Jitendra And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 26 May, 2022
Author: Umesh Kumar
Bench: Umesh Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 82 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19135 of 2021 Applicant :- Jitendra And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mayank Yadav,Vivek Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pradeep Kumar Rai,Prakhar Saran Srivastava Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.
I have heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as AGA and have gone through the material available on record carefully.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 18.03.2021 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No.3, Meerut, in Case No. 714 of 2020 'Arun Kumar Vs. Komal and Others' arising out of Case Crime No. 543 of 2018, under Sections 307, 120B I.P.C., Police Station- Parikshitgarh, District- Meerut. Further prayer to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid case has also been made.
Contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that while allowing the protest petition filed by opposite party no. 2 vide order dated 18.03.2021 the learned Magistrate has considered the extraneous material stated in affidavit filed alongwith the protest petition, which is illegal and liable to be quashed.
Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. has supported the impugned order.
In the case of State of Gujrat Vs. Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta, (2019) 20 SCC 539 his Lordships of Apex Court in para 16 has held that;
"It is well settled that at the stage of issuing process, the Magistrate is mainly concerned with the allegations made in the compliant or the evidence led in support of the same and the Magistrate is only to be satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. It is fairly well settled that when issuing summons, the Magistrate need not explicitly state the reasons for his satisfaction that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused."
The issue whether the Magistrate while issuing process under Section 190 (1) (b) Cr.P.C. the Magistrate is only to be satisfied whether there is sufficient grounds for proceedings and not whether there is sufficient grounds for conviction. Whether the evidence adequate can be determined only at the trial and not at the stage of enquiry. The 'summon' is a process issued by a Court calling upon a person to appear before a Magistrate. It is used for the purpose of notifying an individual of his legal obligation to appear before the Magistrate.
The scope of consideration at the stage of summoning would be as to whether material produced before the learned Magistrate primafacie discloses commission of an offence and a detailed inquiry after sifting of evidence is not to be looked in to. The guilt and innocence is to be determined in the trial and at the stage of summoning it is not necessary delve deep into various aspects rather the Court has only to consider whether materiel on record primafacie discloses commission of an offence and nothing more.
The controversy involved in this application is no more in res-integra and it is well settled that at the stage of summoning the Magistrate would not be required to enter into a detailed discussions either on the merit or demerits of the case. In determining the question whether any process is to be issued are not what the Magistrate has to be satisfied is whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding.
I have also gone through the impugned order dated 18.03.20211 passed by learned Magistrate summoning the applicants and I find that the learned Magistrate has taken much pain in coming to the conclusion that the applicants are liable to be summoned to face trial under Section 307, 120 b I.P.C. and no infirmity or illegality has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicants.
In view of the discussions made herein before, I am of the considered view that the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, has not committed any illegality or infirmity in summoning the applicants to face trial under Section 307, 120 B I.P.C. in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 190 (1) (b) Cr.P.C.
The Application lacks merit hence dismissed.
Needless to state that in the eventuality of filing any bail application by the applicants before the trial Court, it is expected from the trial Court to decide the same expeditiously in accordance with law after considering entire aspect of the matter.
Order Date :- 26.5.2022 S.Verma