Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.
Santosh Kumar Sharma and others - Applicant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh and another – Opposite Parties
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1820 of 2024
Decided On : 09-07-2024
SUMMONING ORDER - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Sections 304, 420 IPC; Sections 200, 202, 204 Cr.P.C. - The court discussed the legal provisions regarding the summoning of accused under Sections 304 and 420 IPC, emphasizing the necessity of a prima facie case and the importance of sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. The court highlighted that mere suspicion or civil disputes cannot justify criminal proceedings, and the absence of medical evidence or post-mortem reports weakened the prosecution's case, leading to the quashing of the summoning order.
Fact of the Case:
The applicants were summoned to face trial under Sections 304 and 420 IPC based on a complaint alleging that they had forced their elderly father to execute a Will in their favor shortly before his death, which the complainant claimed was done under suspicious circumstances.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court had not provided sufficient grounds for summoning the applicants under the alleged charges. It noted the lack of medical evidence or post-mortem reports to substantiate claims of foul play or mental incapacity of the deceased at the time of executing the Will.
Issues: Whether the trial court had sufficient grounds to summon the applicants under Sections 304 and 420 IPC based on the allegations made in the complaint.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that a summoning order must be based on a prima facie case and sufficient grounds must be established. It emphasized that criminal proceedings cannot be initiated merely on suspicion or in the guise of a civil dispute, and the absence of concrete evidence undermines the prosecution's case.
Final Decision: The court allowed the application and quashed the summoning order dated 02.12.2023, along with the entire proceedings of the complaint case against the applicants.
JUDGMENT :
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.
1. Applicants are aggrieved by impugned order dated 02.12.2023 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad in Complaint Case No. 22712 of 2022 (Dev Kumar vs. Santosh Kumar Sharma and others), under Sections 304, 420 IPC, Police Station Shikohabad, District Firozabad, whereby they have been summoned to face trial.
2. Complainant has initially lodged a FIR for offence under Sections 467, 468, 420, 302 IPC that applicants who are his brother and Bhabhi have committed offence of cheating and forgery whereby they have forcefully took signatures and thumb impressions of his father and executed a Will on 27.01.2017 in their favour in exclusion of Complainant and under unnatural circumstances on very next day, his father died on 28.01.2017.
3. After investigation in aforesaid FIR, a final report was submitted. At that stage further investigation was directed by Police Officials, however, again a final report was submitted that there was no reason to take a contrary view to earlier final report.
4. A protest petition thereafter was filed by Complainant, which was treated as a complaint and thereafter statements of Complainant and other witnesses were recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and applicants were summoned by means of impugned order dated 02.12.2023 passed under Section 204 Cr.P.C.
5. Mrs. Anita Singh, learned counsel for applicants submitted that Complainant has also filed a civil suit for cancellation of Will. Complainant was mainly aggrieved that Will was prepared only in favour of applicants and he was not included and in order to give a criminal colour to a civil dispute, criminal proceedings were initiated. Learned counsel further submits that only on basis that their father died after a day of execution of Will, it could not be a case for offence under Section 304 IPC without any evidence. It is on record that applicants’ father was an 80 year old person and was suffering from old age ailments. He got admitted in hospital on 27.01.2024 and discharged on 28.01.2024, however, he died on same day. No objection was made when cremation was conducted. He refers some statements recorded during investigation specifically the statement of Doctor. There are no ground to proceed against the applicants and summoning order is liable to be quashed.
6. Per contra, Sri Mithilesh Kumar, learned AGA for State and Sri Arvind Agarwal, learned counsel for Opposite Party No. 2, has submitted that applicants have taken advantage of old age of his father and forced him to execute a Will in favour of applicants. He was not in best of his mental condition. Complainant’s father died in suspicious circumstances. It was not normal that on the very next date of execution of Will his father got admitted and was forcefully discharged and later on same day he died. Factum of filing a suit for cancellation of Will was not denied.
7. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material available on record.
8. Before adverting to rival submissions it would be relevant to refer few paragraph of a recent judgement passed by Supreme Court in A.M. Mohan Vs. State Represented by SHO and another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 339:-
“9. The law with regard to exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. to quash complaints and criminal proceedings has been succinctly summarized by this Court in the case of Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Limited1 after considering the earlier precedents. It will be apposite to refer to the following observations of this Court in the said case, which read thus:
“12. The principles relating to exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash complaints and criminal proceedings have been stated and reiterated by this Court in several decisions. To mention a few —Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre [(1988) 1 SCC 692 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 234], State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426], R
AI
The mandatory requirement of recording evidence under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. before summoning the accused and the limited nature of the inquiry under Section 202.
A Magistrate must provide reasons and apply judicial mind when summoning accused in a complaint case, failing which the order is liable to be set aside.
A second complaint on the same cause of action after acceptance of a final report is maintainable only in exceptional circumstances; summoning orders must reflect judicial application of mind.
A detailed appreciation of evidence is not required at the stage of summoning of an accused person.
For the offence of cheating under Section 420 IPC, there must be clear evidence of dishonest intention at the inception of a transaction. Mere investment disputes without such intent do not constitut....
The court has the inherent power to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice, and criminal proceedings should not be permitted to continue if the dispute is purely civil in nature and ....
Non-examination of all witnesses does not invalidate summons if sufficient evidence supports the charges; proceedings against deceased individuals are abated.
The inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. is mandatory when the accused resides beyond the Magistrate's jurisdiction, and summoning an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter requiring the applica....
Absent core elements of deception and harm, allegations of forgery and cheating in the context of legal heirs and land mutation do not warrant criminal prosecution.
The main legal point established is that summoning of an accused in a criminal case requires the Magistrate to conduct an inquiry or investigation before issuing the process, and the Magistrate must ....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
