Back
SYED AFTAB HUSAIN RIZVI
Pradeep Agarwal – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi, J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This criminal revision is directed against summoning order dated 22.12.2022 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etah in Complaint Case No. 4139 of 2022 (Manoj Agarwal v. Pradeep Agarwal and another) filed under Sections 406 , 182, 465, 467, 468, 471, 385 and 311 I.P.C. Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Etah. By the impugned order learned Magistrate has summoned revisionist no.1 for the offence under Sections 420, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and revisionist no.2 for the offence under Sections 504 and 506 I.P.C.
3. Learned counsel for the revisionists contended that the complaint filed by opposite party no.2 is false, frivolous and vexatious. It has been filed by concealing real facts and fraud has been played upon the court. Opposite party no.2 had issued a cheque of Rs.18 lacs on 21.03.2018 in favour of revisionist no.1 which was dishonoured and revisionist no.1 has filed Complaint Case No.845 of 2018 under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act in which opposite party no.2 has been summoned on 15.09.2018. Opposite party no.2 filed Criminal Misc. Application (Under Section 482 Cr.P.C.) No. 2618 of 2019 befo
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.
Point of Law : Test to be applied at the stage was whether the material placed before the Magistrate was "sufficient for proceeding against the accused" and not "sufficient to prove and establish the....
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.
Magistrate was not bound by the final report submitted by the police after investigation. Once he has taken cognizance under Section 190(1)(a) Cr.P.C. he may have taken into consideration the evidenc....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the respondents/accused were found to be acting in compliance with the orders of the Illaqua Magistrate and were not found to have committed a....
A signatory of a cheque can be held liable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, and the dismissal of a complaint for want of prosecution does not bar the revisional court from correcting such orders.
Judicial decisions must be reasoned to ensure accountability and transparency; failure to provide reasons constitutes a denial of justice.
The judgment established the availability of inherent power of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and emphasized the necessity for the magistrate to apply their mind before passing the summoning ord....
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
