IMPORTANT POINT
Summoning of a person to face trial – Magistrate is not duty bound to accept the Final Report filed under Section 173 (2), Cr.P.C. – Existence of power and exercise of power are different and distinct – Taking cognizance empowered under Section 190, Cr.P.C. and issuing process empowered under Section 204, Cr.P.C. are different and distinct.

JUDGMENT :

C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.

Leave granted.

1. The captioned appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 10.10.2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Application under Section 482 No. 5961 of 2013. As per the impugned order, in invocation of the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “the Cr.P.C.”) the High Court quashed the order dated 05.04.2012 passed by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahjahanpur in Criminal Case No. 1478 of 2012, summoning the respondent No. 2 herein in the appeal to face the trial for the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “the IPC”).

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1-State of Uttar Pradesh and the learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2.

3. It is a matter where, initially, the complainant approached the Court of jurisdictional Magistrate with a complaint and on being refused to forward the complaint for investigation under Section 156 (3), Cr.P.C. the matter was taken up in revision and upon its dismissal before the High Court in Criminal Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 9134/2005. Consequently, based on the orders of the High Court thereon, F.I.R. No. 107/2005 was registered at Alhaganj Police Station under Section 306, IPC. The final report filed under Section 173(2), Cr.P.C. would reveal that after the investigation, virtually, a closure report was filed by the investigating agency. The learned Magistrate did not accept the closure report. In the protest petition filed by the appellant herein the learned Magistrate made an inquiry as contemplated under Section 202, Cr.P.C. and based on all the materials collected issued summons to respondent No. 2 herein as per order dated 05.04.2012 and it is the challenge against the same that culminated in the impugned order.

4. Compendiously stated, the case of the appellant is that respondent No. 2 committed abetment of suicide inasmuch as his father Shri Brijesh Chandra, committed suicide, by consuming poison, in the office of Sub-Mandi, Alhaganj, where he was working, after leaving a suicide note attributing responsibility for the same on respondent No. 2. The appellant’s father was earlier working in Mandi Samiti, Puwaya as Security Guard and the respondent No. 2 was the then Secretary of the Mandi Samiti. The complaint is to the effect that the salary of the deceased from March, 2004 to August, 2004 and September, 2004 onwards was not paid by Mandi Samiti, Jalalabad and on 12.10.2004, when he requested for its release, respondent No. 2 told:

“I will see that how will you get your salary and who will help you in getting your salary, I will bring out your military-man-ship and either you die or your children, but I do not care, get out of here, why you do not take poison.”

5. According to the appellant, the deceased was a retired military man and subsequent to the events on 12.10.2004 he returned home in moony mood and on 23.10.2004 at around 10.00 a.m. went to attend duty at Sub-Mandi, Alhaganj from Warikhas and committed suicide thereafter leaving a suicide note noting down such incident as well.

6. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival contentions and also have gone through the detailed discussion made by the High Court to come to the conclusion to invoke the power under Section 482, Cr.P.C. to quash the order dated 05.04.2012. The bifold contentions of the appellant raised, based on law, against the impugned judgment are as under:

(i) The High Court has committed grave error in law in quashing the summons issued against respondent No. 2.

(ii) The High Court has stepped beyond the settled guidelines and parameters ordained by this Court in catena of decisions with respect to exercise of power under Section 482, Cr.P.C. and in view of such guidelines and parameters, the High Court was not justified in interfering with the summons issued by the Trial Court.

7. Per contra