Allahabad High Court
Ram Bahadur vs State Of U.P. And Another on 27 March, 2023
Author: Samit Gopal
Bench: Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 71 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9071 of 2023 Applicant :- Ram Bahadur Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ravindra Prakash Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
1. List revised.
2. Heard Sri Ravindra Prakash Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri B.B. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the State and perused the record.
3. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant Ram Bahadur with the prayer to allow this application and quash the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 1054 of 2018 (Shiv Kumar Vs. Ram Bahadur), under Section 406, 504, 506(2) IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Basti, pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate-I, Basti including the summoning order dated 10.12.20118 and with a further prayer to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid case, during the pendency of the present application.
4. The only argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that the order dated 10.12.2018 passed by the trial court is a non speaking and cryptic order inasmuch as although the trial court has mentioned in the second paragraph of the said order, the fact of the prosecution and recorded about the statements under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. of the complainant and his witnesses, then in next para it is stated that perused the trial court record, subsequently in the next paragraph has stated that it has perused the complainant and an offence under Sections 406, 504, 506(2) IPC prima facie is made out and hence there is sufficient ground to summon the applicant and then subsequently passed an order summoning the applicant specific which is non speaking and a cryptic order inasmuch as the Magistrate ought to have got conducted an enquiry in the matter and then stated in detail in the said order as to how an offence under the said sections are made out and then should have proceeded to summon the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon an order dated 28.02.2023 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl. Misc. Application 482 No. 7494 of 2023 (Ishwar Chandra Gupta and 2 others Vs. State of U.P. and another).
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for quashing.
6. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is trite law that at the stage of summoning only prima facie opinion has to be drawn by the court for summoning the accused, the court has to see as to whether prima facie case is made out against the accused or not. A summoning order as has been held continuously by the Apex Court need not be a detailed order in a matter. The Apex Court in the cases of Bhushan Kumar Vs. State of NCT of Delhi : (2012) 2 SCC 424, Nupur Talwar Vs. CBI : (2012) 11 SCC 465, Dy. Chief Controller Vs. Roshanlal Agarwal : (2003) 4 SCC 139 and Kanti Bhadra Shah Vs. State of W.B. : (2000) 1 SCC 722 it has been held by the Apex Court that in determining the question whether any process is to be issued or not, what the Magistrate has to be satisfied is whether any process is to be issued or not, what the Magistrate has to be satisfied is whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding and not whether there is sufficient ground for conviction. Whether the evidence is adequate for supporting the conviction, can be determined only at the trial and not at the stage of enquiry. At the stage of issuing the process to the accused, the Magistrate is not required to record reasons. There is no legal requirement imposed on a magistrate for passing detailed order while issuing summons. The process issued to accused cannot be quashed merely on the ground that the Magistrate had not passed a speaking order. Section 204 Cr.P.C. does not mandate the Magistrate to explicitly state the reasons for issuance of summons.
7. In so far as the order relied by learned counsel for the applicant also is concerned, it states of the same legal position and nothing different. The order dated 10.12.2018 summoning the applicant in the present case which is impugned herein has been passed after recording a satisfaction that prima facie case is made out. The trial court has adverted to the allegations in the complaint and the facts of the case.
8. In view of the same, there is no illegality or irregularity in the order impugned summoning the applicant to face trial.
9. Looking to the facts of the case, the prima facie allegation against the applicant and the law as stated above, no case for interference is made out. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is thus dismissed.
10. After this order has been passed learned counsel for the applicant states that appropriate order be passed for deciding the bail application of the applicant on the same day.
11. Needless to state that the trial court is expected to decide the bail application of the applicant strictly in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible considering the law laid down by the Apex Court with regards to the same.
Order Date :- 27.3.2023 M. ARIF (Samit Gopal, J.)