Allahabad High Court
Nandlal And Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, ... on 16 February, 2023
Author: Suresh Kumar Gupta
Bench: Suresh Kumar Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 14 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1501 of 2023 Applicant :- Nandlal And Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Abhay Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
In view of order proposed to be passed, issuance of notice to opposite party no.2 is dispensed with.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the impugned summoning order dated 28.3.2019 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Room No. 18 Sultanpur as well as bailable warrant dated 14.11.2022 issued against the petitioners in complaint case no. 738 of 2018 under Sections 323, 452, 406, 506, 427 IPC Police Station- Munshiganj, District- Amethi.
Learned counsel for applicants has submitted that firstly, a criminal case against the opposite party no. 2 has been lodged on 4.11.2016 bearing case crime no. 472 of 2016 under Section 147, 148, 323, 352, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3 (2)(Va) of the S.C./S.T. in which the charge sheet has been submitted. He further submitted that secondly, the applicant no. 1 has lodged criminal case on 23.5.2017 as case crime no. 339/2017 under Sections 436, 504, 506 I.P.C. 3(2) of the S.C./S.T. Act in which after investigation the final report was submitted ant the applicant has moved the protest petition. Learned counsel for the applicants further submitted that as a counter blast of the aforesaid two cases, the opposite party no. 2 has filed present case against the applicants. He also submitted that on the basis of the statements of the complainant and witnesses recorded u/s 200 and 202 CrPC respectively, summoning order was passed against the applicants without applying judicial mind.The whole story as narrated in the statement of the witnesses has been cooked and manufactured, therefore, the trial court has materially erred in summoning the applicants, as such the orders are liable to be set aside.
Before arguing the case on merits, learned counsel for the petitioners while pressing the present petition submits that the trial court while summoning the petitioner has materially erred and did not follow the dictum of law as propounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various cases that summoning in criminal case is a serious matter and the trial court without dwelling into material and visualizing the case on the touch stone of probability should not summon accused person to face criminal trial. It is further submitted that the trial court has not taken into consideration the material placed before the trial court and, therefore, the trial court has materially erred in summoning the petitioners.
So far as quashing of entire proceedings is concerned, from the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the petitioners. All the submission made relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court. At this stage, only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the petitioners have got a right of discharge according to the provisions prescribed in Cr.P.C., as the case may be, through a proper application for the said purpose and he is free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the trial court.
So far as the summoning order passed by the learned trial court is concerned, at the stage of taking cognizance, trial court can simply form an opinion as to whether the case is fit for taking and committing the matter for trial or not. In the present case, learned trial court clearly expressed his opinion that he perused all the record and clearly indicated that the material placed before him is sufficient to proceed the case. Thus, the cognizance order is not a proforma order. Every aspect is touched by learned trial court and petitioner failed to adduce any evidence which caused prejudiced to him. So, the cognizance and summoning order is perfectly valid and there is no occasion to quash the same.
The prayer for quashing the impugned summoning order, impugned orders as well as impugned proceedings is refused.
However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is provided that if the applicants/petitioners appear before the trial court and apply for bail, then their bail application shall be considered and decided in accordance with law propounded by the Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.5191 of 2021, decided on 07.10.2021. In this case Hon'ble the Apex Court has already laid down guidelines for grant of bail, without fettering the discretion of the courts concerned and the statutory provisions governing consideration in grant of bail, no specific directions need be issued by this Court as it is expected that the court concerned will take into consideration the necessary guidelines already issued by the Apex Court.
Accordingly, the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of.
Order Date :- 16.2.2023 Anuj Singh