SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2001 Supreme(All) 690

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
J. C. GUPTA
THAKUR SINGH - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Respondents
CRIMINAL REVISION 1821 Of 2001
Decided On : 07/17/2001

Advocates Appeared:
VIR SINGH

The court emphasized the limited grounds for quashing the order of summoning and the discretion of the Magistrate in issuing process.

Headnote:

Revision - Summoning of Accused - Limited Grounds for Quashing - No Interference Found

Fact of the Case:

The revision is directed against the order summoning the applicants as accused under Section 420/467/471/379, I. P. C. , P. S. Kotwali City, district Bijnor.

Finding of the Court:

The court found no sufficient ground to interfere in the order of summoning based on the limited grounds for quashing.

Issues: The issues revolved around the grounds for quashing the order of summoning and the discretion exercised by the Magistrate.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the order of summoning can only be quashed on limited grounds and found no interference warranted in the present case.

Final Decision: The revision was dismissed, and the order of summoning was upheld.

J. C. GUPTA, J.

( 1 ) AD Sri Veer Singh for the applicants in revision and the learned A. G. A. for the State.

( 2 ) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 12-4-2001 summoning the applicants as accused under Section 420/467/471/379, I. P. C. , P. S. Kotwali City, district Bijnor. It has been prayed that the order of summoning be quashed. It is well settled that in revision order of summoning can be quashed only on limited grounds namely : (1) where the allegations made in the complaint and the evidence adduced in support thereof even if taken at their face value, do not constitute any criminal offence; (2) where the allegations made in the complaint and evidence adduced in support thereof are patently so absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent and reasonable person can ever reach a conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused; (3) where the discretion exercised by the Magistrate in issuing process is capricious and arbitrary having been based either on evidence or materials which are wholly irrelevant or inadmissible; and (4) where the complaint suffers from any fundamental legal defect, such as want of sanction or absence of a complaint by a person legally competent to institute the same and the like;

( 3 ) THE instant case is not covered by any of the above mentioned grounds nor the Court finds any other sufficient ground to make interference in the order of summoning. Learned counsel for the applicants tried to place before the Court some documents and argued on the basis thereof that as per the defence plea there has been no manipulation in the entries in revenue records. This defence plea cannot be looked into at the stage of summoning nor order issuing process can be set aside on that ground and the matter has to be left in the discretion of the appropriate forum to decide the same at appropriate stage.

( 4 ) FOR the above reasons, this revision is failed and hereby dismissed. Revision dismissed.


.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top