Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
NAND PRABHA SHUKLA, J.
Shishupal Singh and Others – Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. and Another – Respondents
Application U/s 482 No. 42855 of 2023
Decided On : 10-05-2024
CRIMINAL LAW - QUASHING OF SUMMONING ORDER - Sections 147, 308, 323, 504, 506 IPC; Section 482 Cr.P.C.; Sections 200, 202, 156(3) Cr.P.C. - The court discussed the legal provisions regarding the summoning of accused under the IPC and the procedural requirements under the Cr.P.C. It emphasized the necessity for the magistrate to apply judicial mind and scrutinize evidence before issuing summons. The court found that the trial court failed to adhere to these principles, leading to the quashing of the summoning orders.
Fact of the Case:
The applicants sought to quash the orders of the Chief Judicial Magistrate summoning them in a complaint case alleging assault. The complaint arose from an incident where the complainant's sons were allegedly attacked by the applicants, leading to injuries. A closure report was submitted by the police after investigation, but the complainant filed a protest petition which was treated as a complaint, resulting in the summoning orders.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court did not apply its judicial mind while summoning the applicants. It noted discrepancies in the evidence and the lack of proper examination of material witnesses. The court concluded that the summoning orders were issued without sufficient basis and were therefore invalid.
Issues: Whether the trial court properly applied its mind to the evidence before summoning the applicants, and whether the summoning orders were justified based on the material presented.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that the summoning of an accused must reflect a careful examination of the allegations and evidence. It emphasized that the magistrate must not act mechanically and must ensure that there is a prima facie case before issuing summons.
Final Decision: The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was allowed, and the summoning orders were set aside. The matter was remitted back to the trial court for fresh consideration in light of the court's observations.
JUDGMENT :
NAND PRABHA SHUKLA, J.
1. Heard Sri Raghuvansh Misra, learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and Sri Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.
2. Perused the record.
3. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the order dated 25.01.2023 as well as the summoning order dated 26.05.2023 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Dehat in Complaint Case No. 803 of 2023 (Manju Shukla vs. Shishupal Singh Katiyar) under Sections 147, 308, 323, 504, 506 IPC, (Case Crime No. 58 of 2022), Police Station Gajner, District Kanpur Dehat as well as the entire proceedings of the aforesaid complaint case pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Dehat against the applicants.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the opposite party no. 2 Smt. Manju Shukla moved an application dated 25.03.2022 under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. on the basis of which a First Information Report dated 02.04.2022 was registered as Case Crime No. 58 of 2022, under Sections 147, 308, 323, 504 IPC, Police Station Gajner, District Kanpur Dehat alleging that on 15.03.2022 her two sons Gopal Shukla and Ram Shukla were going to their fields on a motorcycle and were ambushed by the applicants near the house of village Pradhan Rekha Singh (wife of applicant no. 1 Shishupal Singh). Shishupal Singh hit an axe on the head of Gopal Shukla and Ram Shukla was assaulted with sticks. Upon hearing about the incident, her other two sons Govind Shukla and Chhotu Shukla went to rescue the injured and found them lying unconscious. At the place of occurrence, a Milk Dairy was situated owned by Bhanu Pratap Singh, whose employee, namely, Shubham Shukla fired with a country made pistol of 315 bore causing injury to Akanshu.
5. On 15.03.2022, Gopal Shukla was medically examined at District Hospital, Kanpur Dehat. A lacerated wound of 6x5 cm was found on the head with irregular margins and complaint of pain in right thumb. All the injuries were found to be simple in nature. A CT Scan of the head of Gopal Shukla was conducted on 15.03.2022 and soft tissue scalp injury was noted with no intra-cranial abnormality. The injured was discharged in a satisfactory condition on 17.03.2022.
6. After the registration of the FIR, the investigation was conducted and the Closure Report/Final Report dated 26.04.2022 under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. was prepared and submitted before the concerned Court. Against the said Closure Report/Final Report the opposite party no. 2 moved a protest petition which was treated as a complaint case vide order dated 25.01.2023 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Kanpur Dehat and after examining upon oath the complainant and the witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Dehat vide order dated 26.05.2023 summoned the accused/applicants to face trial.
7. Learned counsel for the applicants have assailed the aforesaid order dated 25.01.2023 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Kanpur Dehat and order dated 26.05.2023 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Dehat on following grounds:
(i) The impugned orders have been passed without application of mind.
(ii) The learned Trial Court committed a manifest error in treating the protest petition as a complaint case and rejected the Closure Report/Final Report without adverting to the material collected during investigation and followed the procedure of complaint case mechanically.
(iii) The opposite party No. 2 Smt. Manju Shukla, in order to settle the score and to mount pressure for compromise against the cross case, i.e. FIR bearing Case Crime No. 47 of 2022, under Sections 34/307, 323, 504 IPC at Police Station Gajner, District Kanpur Dehat, lodged the impugned criminal proceedings against the applicants.
(iv) Injured Ram Shukla was though alleged to have been assaulted but no medical report was produced.
(v) The independent eye-witness
The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of recording reasons and application of mind by the Magistrate when passing a summoning order, especially when the Magistrate's view ....
Point of law : Section 203 of the Code empowers a Magistrate to dismiss a complaint without even issuing a process. It uses the words “after considering” and “the Magistrate is of opinion that there ....
At the stage of summoning, the Magistrate is not required to consider the defense version or evaluate the merits of the materials or evidence of the complainant.
The court emphasized the requirement of a prima facie case to summon the accused and the necessity of injury report in determining the sufficiency of grounds for summoning the accused.
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
