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

2008 Supreme(All) 656

AMAR SARAN
MUNNA LAL – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U P – Respondent


AMAR SARAN, J.

Heard learned Counsel for the applicants and Sri Vinod Kumar Mishra, learned A. G. A. This application has been filed for challenging an order summoning the applicants along with some other accused by order dated 13. 9. 2007 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Room No. 1, Firozabad in Case No. 3078 of 2007 under sections 147, 353, 336, 427, 504, 506 IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, P. S. Sirsaganj, district Firozabad, and for quashing the criminal proceedings thereof.

2. Essentially one submission has been made that the summoning order dated 13. 9. 207 passed on a charge-sheet was on a printed proforma and it revealed lack of application of mind.

3. Learned Counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on a judgment passed by a Single Judge (Honble K. N. Sinha, J.) in the case of Chhaya William (Smt.) and others v. State of U. P. and another, 2003 (47) ACC 1017 that the summoning order must disclose application of mind. It may be mentioned that the said decision was passed when the summoning order was passed in a complaint case. The present case is a case of summoning all the accused-after submission of the charge-sheet and in a charge-sheet case












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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top