Allahabad High Court
Ajai Pratap Singh @ Ajai Sipahi vs The State Of U.P. & Anr. on 21 January, 2020
Author: Chandra Dhari Singh
Bench: Chandra Dhari Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 14 Case :- U/S 482/378/407 No. - 6788 of 2019 Applicant :- Ajai Pratap Singh @ Ajai Sipahi Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P. & Anr. Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Singh,Dharmendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.
The instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the following prayers:-
"a. To quash the impugned charge sheet bearing no.01 dated 08.07.2017 submitted in case crime No.0050 of 2017 under Section 174A IPC, P.S. Mahrua, District Ambedkar Nagar before the Court below, which is contained in Annexure No.1 to this petition.
b. To set aside the impugned cognizance order and the proceedings pursuant to it passed by the learned court below on charge sheet bearing No.01 dated 08.07.2017 submitted in case crime No.0050/2017 under Section 174A IPC, P.S. Mahrua, District Ambedkar Nagar against the petitioner."
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is settled law that specification of time and place are the most essential part of a legal requirement and the omission to mention either is an incurable defect in the summoning order. Notice or order rendering it impossible for enforcement as per the dictum of the law settled. Learned counsel as relied on Empress of India vs. Ram Saran reported in (1882) A.W.N. 145 to strengthen his arguments. It is submitted that the proclamation merely directing a person to appear on a certain day without specifying the hours and the place, when and where, he is to attend/appear, cannot therefore, support a conviction for disobedience under Section 174A IPC. It is reasonable to assume that the person who is required to appear before the Court on a particular day without mentioning the hour will be left in some doubt and perplexity as to what time he should present himself before the Court as per the mandatory requirement of Section 87 Cr.P.C. and 174A IPC.
Learned counsel has further submitted that the condition requisite for initiation of proceedings are contained in Chapter XIV of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Section 195 Cr.P.C. contains the mandatory requirements which are to be followed before taking cognizance by any Court. It is further submitted that Section 195 (1)(a)(i) Cr.P.C. clearly bars the Court to take cognizance of offence punishable under Section 174A IPC.
Learned counsel has also submitted that for initiation of proceedings the written complaint should have been made by the Magistrate who issued the proclamation and required the appearance of the petitioner, and since there is no such type of complaint and the proceeding of the present case has started on the complaint of Sub-Inspector, the said proceeding is without jurisdiction and void ab initio.
Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that there are no illegality in filing of the charge-sheet. No ground for invoking extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the charge-sheet has been made. The instant petition being devoid of merit be dismissed as such.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
From perusal of the record as well as the contentions made in the instant petition, I do not find any good ground or cogent reason to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to allow the prayer made in the instant petition.
Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 21.1.2020 nishant/-