Allahabad High Court
Bayer Crop Science Ltd., Bayer House, ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. ... on 3 May, 2024
Author: Shamim Ahmed
Bench: Shamim Ahmed
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:34556 Court No. - 27 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4099 of 2024 Applicant :- Bayer Crop Science Ltd., Bayer House, Central Avenue, Heera Nandani, Maharastra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home, Civil Sectt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rohit Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.
Heard Sri Rohit Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State as well as perused the record.
By means of the present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. the applicant has sought quashing of the impugned summoning order dated 02.06.2021 issued by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bahraich in Complaint No.5299 of 2021 pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bahraich.
Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been summoned under Section 29(1)(a) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 ("the Act of brevity). He further submits that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment.
He further submits that the learned Magistrate has passed a non speaking order while summoning the applicant to face the prosecution. In order to buttress his contention, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the cases of Mahboob and others vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in 2017 (2) JIC, 320, (All) (LB) and Hariram Verma and 4 Others Vs. State of U.P. and Anohter, reported in 2017 (99) ALL CC 104. In paragraph 8 of Hariram Verma's case it has been observed:
"8. But in impugned order there is nothing which may indicate that learned Magistrate had even considered facts of the case in hand before passing the summoning order. Impugned order clearly lacks the reflection of application of judicial discretion or mind. Nothing is there which may show that learned Magistrate, before passing of the order under challenge had considered facts of the case and evidence or law. Therefore it appears that, in fact, no judicial mind was applied before the passing of impugned order of summoning. Such order cannot be accepted as a proper legal judicial order passed after following due procedure of law."
Reliance is also placed upon the judgement of this Court in the case of Smt. Shiv Kumar and others vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in 2017 (2) JIC, 589, (All) (LB). Paragraph No. 10 of the aforesaid judgement is relevant for the controversy in hand. The same is as under:-
"10. Learned Magistrate was required to atleast mention in the order about the prima facie satisfaction for summoning the accused. The order must reflect that the learned Magistrate has exercised his jurisdiction in accordance with law after satisfying himself about the prima facie allegations made in the complaint. The accused cannot be summoned mechanically merely by writing that perused the statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr. P. C."
Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that before issuing process, the learned Magistrate has to comply with the provision of Section 202 Cr.P.C., however, the same has not been done.
Section 202 Cr.P.C. is being quoted hereunder:-
202. Postponement of issue of process.
(1)Any Magistrate, on receipt of a complaint of an offence of which he is authorised to take cognizance or which has been made over to him under section 192 may, if he thinks fit, [and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction] [Inserted by Act 25 of 2005, Section 19 (w.e.f. 23-6-2006).] postpone the issue of process against the accused, and either inquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding :Provided that no such direction for investigation shall be made, -
(a)where it appears to the Magistrate that the offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Session; or
(b)where the complaint has not been made by a Court, unless the complainant and the witnesses present (if any) have been examined on oath under section 200.
(2)In an inquiry under sub-section (1), the Magistrate may, if he thinks fit, take evidence of witnesses on oath :Provided that if it appears to the Magistrate that the offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Session, he shall call upon the complainant to produce all his witnesses and examine them on oath.
(3)If an investigation under sub-section (1) is made by a person not being a police officer, he shall have for that investigation all the powers conferred by this Court on an officer-in-charge of a police station except the power to arrest without warrant.
Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that it is obligatory on the part of the Magistrate before whom a complaint is presented to either himself conduct an inquiry or order in case of an accused who is claimed to be residing outside the Magistrate's territorial jurisdiction. He further submits that despite the above settled provision of law, the learned Magistrate in this case has neither conducted any inquire nor he ordered for conducting the same.
From the perusal of the materials on record and looking into the facts of the case and after considering the arguments made at the bar, it does not appear that no offence has been made out against the applicant.
The Apex Court has also laid down the guidelines where the criminal proceedings could be interfered and quashed in exercise of its power by the High Court in the following cases:-(i) R.P. Kapoor Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 S.C. 866, (ii) State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal, 1992 SCC (Crl.)426, (iii) State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Crl.)192 and (iv) Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.)283.
From the aforesaid decisions the Apex Court has settled the legal position for quashing of the proceedings at the initial stage. The test to be applied by the court is to whether uncontroverted allegation as made prima facie establishes the offence and the chances of ultimate conviction is bleak and no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing criminal proceedings to be continued. In S.W. Palankattkar & others Vs. State of Bihar, 2002 (44) ACC 168, it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that quashing of the criminal proceedings is an exception than a rule. The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C itself envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised:-(i) to give effect an order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of the court ; (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. The power of High Court is very wide but should be exercised very cautiously to do real and substantial justice for which the court alone exists.
After considering the over all facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the arguments as advanced by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that in the light of the judgements referred above, it is demonstrably clear that the impugned summoning order is cryptic and does not stand the test laid down by this Court and also the same has been passed without making compliance of the mandatory provision of Section 202 Cr.P.C.
Accordingly, the present application is allowed and the impugned summoning order dated02.06.2021 issued by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bahraich in Complaint No.5299 of 2021, is hereby quashed.
The matter is remanded back to the concerned trial court with the direction to re-visit and re-consider the matter again and to pass a fresh reasoned and speaking order which must be reflective of judicial application of mind by the court concerned, within four months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 3.5.2024 Saurabh