Mohd. Asif vs State Of Uttar Pradesh

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(SC) 222

ABHAY S. OKA, N. KOTISWAR SINGH
Mohd. Asif – Appellant
Versus
State Of Uttar Pradesh – Respondent

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Praveen Chaturvedi, AOR, Mr. Shashindra Tripathi, Adv.
For the Respondent: Ms. Garima Prashad, Sr. A.A.G., Mr. Sudeep Kumar, AOR, Mr. Abhishek Saket, Adv., Ms. Manisha, Adv., Ms. Rupali, Adv., Ms. Ashmita Bisarya, Adv., Mr. Binod Kumar Singh, Adv., Mr. Nirmal Kumar Ambastha, AOR

ORDER :

1. Leave granted.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

3. There is no dispute that the order passed by the learned Magistrate dated 21st July, 2017 by which the accused were summoned on a complaint under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘the Cr.P.C.’) has been set aside by the High Court by the impugned order. It is an admitted position that order of summoning was questioned by the second respondent which was confirmed upto this Court.

4. The petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed by the second respondent challenging the order dated 18th September, 2018 by which application for discharge made by him was rejected.

5. By the impugned order, the High Court has set aside the summoning order dated 21st July, 2017 though the said order had attained finality. Moreover, the said order is set aside on a wrong premise that sub-section 2 of Section 202 of Cr.P.C. is mandatory in every case where it appears to the learned Magistrate that the offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions. Therefore, the impugned order insofar as it set asides the order of summoning will have to be quashed and set aside. However, the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document