Allahabad High Court
Kamala Devi vs State And Another on 8 August, 2019
Author: Sudhir Agarwal
Bench: Sudhir Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Court No. - 34 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 210 of 1994 Revisionist :- Kamala Devi Opposite Party :- State And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Ashok Kumar Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.G.A. Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
1. Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Rai, learned counsel for revisionist and perused the material available on record.
2. This criminal revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C., has been filed aggrieved by summoning order dated 20.01.1994 passed by IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad which reads as under:-
"Seen the record. There is an affidavit in support of the prosecution case. Summon the accused 323, 506 and 3(10) SC/ST Act, for 20.02.1994."
3. A perusal of impugned order shows that Magistrate concerned without application of mind, has summoned the accused.
4. Learned counsel for revisionist 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."
5. Learned counsel for revisionist 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.
6. Learned AGA also could not dispute that such an order is impermissible.
7. In view thereof, revision is allowed. Impugned order dated 20.01.1994 is hereby quashed.
8. Certify this judgment to the lower Court immediately.
Order Date :- 8.8.2019 Siddhant Sahu