Allahabad High Court
Mukund Lal Verma And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 30 July, 2019
Author: Sudhir Agarwal
Bench: Sudhir Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Court No. - 34 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2307 of 2003 Applicant :- Mukund Lal Verma And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- N.D. Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt.Advocate,Navin Kumar Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
1. Heard Sri N.D. Shukla, learned counsel for applicants and learned A.G.A. for State of U.P.
2. Applicants have invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C.") with a prayer to quash the entire Criminal proceedings under Section 467, 468, 420, 504 IPC, Police Station Chauri, District Bhadohi arising out of charge-sheet dated 27.07.2002 whereby applicants have been summoned.
3. It is contended that Magistrate concerned took cognizance of the case and summoned applicants to face prosecution on the basis of charge-sheet dated 27.07.2002. Order taking cognizance of the case, is contained on aforesaid charge-sheet, which clearly shows non application of mind by concerned Magistrate as order summoning accused apparently has been passed without looking into the investigation report whether there was sufficient material to summon the accused or not. Said summoning order passed on charge-sheet dated 27.07.2002 reads as under :
^^izlaKku fy;k x;k ntZ jftLVj gksA** " Cognizance taken. Register."
(English translation by Court)
4. It clearly shows non application of mind on the part of Magistrate who issued summons to accused merely on the ground that charge sheet was submitted.
5. Learned counsel for applicant placed reliance on a Single Judge judgment of this Court in Dinesh Kumar Gupta Vs. State of U. P. and another, 2013 (4) ADJ 274, wherein Court considering a similar order has held that such an order cannot be sustained and there is total non application of mind on the part of Magistrate. Relevant extract of aforesaid judgment reads as under :
"A perusal of the aforesaid order it is revealed that the learned Magistrate has no where mentioned in the order that he has perused the charge-sheet and material filed in support thereof nor he disclosed the fact that the materials were sufficient to proceed with the case. The manner in which the learned Magistrate has passed the order impugned cannot be said that he had applied his mind to the facts contained in the charge-sheet and other materials filed in support thereof. Therefore, the aforesaid order cannot be described as an order "taking of cognizance of the offences" disclosed in the charge-sheet against the petitioner, hence the order dated 3.10.2012 cannot be sustained."
6. Learned counsel for applicant has also placed reliance on a Supreme Court judgment in Fakhruddin Ahmad vs. State of Uttraranchal, 2009 (64) AllCri C 774 and also on a judgment of this Court in Akash Garg vs. State of U. P. and others, 2011 (1) ADJ 849.
7. Learned A.G.A. also could not dispute that impugned order shows non application of mind.
8. In view thereof, this application is allowed. Summoning order passed on charge-sheet dated 27.07.2002 is hereby set aside. Magistrate concerned shall now consider the charge sheet and pass fresh order in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 30.7.2019 Siddhant Sahu