Court No. - 84

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 43185 of 2012

Applicant :- Ramesh Chandra And Others

Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another

Counsel for Applicant :- C.K. Parekh,Kumar Ankit Srivastava

Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt.Advocate,Ram Surat

Saroj

Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned AGA for

State.

2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for

quashing of summoning order dated 03.08.2011 as well as

Complaint Case No. 1778 of 2009 (Lalmani vs. Virendra Pratap

and others), under Sections 406, 120B, 417, 418, 419, 420, 468,

504, 506 IPC.

3. It is settled law that at the time of passing a summoning order

on the basis of criminal complaint and statements recorded

under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. the Court concerned has to

make out an opinion that there was sufficient ground for

proceeding. However, as pointed out by learned counsel for

applicants, in impugned order the complaint has been

reproduced verbatim and there is no discussion about the

statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., except

that, "Parivad Patra Me Dhara 200 Dn.Pr.Sn. Va Dhara 202

Dn.Pr.Sn. Ke Antargat Prikshit Karae Gae Bayan Ke Vishleshan

Se Pratham Dristya Karyawahi Kiye Jane Ka Adhar Paryapt

Hai. Abhiyuktgan Dhara 406, 120B, 417, 418, 419, 420, 468,

504, 506 Bha.Dn.Sn. Me Ahut Kiye Jane Yoyga Hai."

4. The words 'sufficient ground', used under Section 203 Cr.P.C.

have to be construed to mean the satisfaction that a prima facie

case is made out against the accused and not sufficient ground

for the purpose of conviction (para 15 of S.W. Palanitkar Vs

State of Bihar: (2002) 1 SCC 241). "...All that he (Magistrate)

has to see is whether or not there is 'sufficient ground for

proceeding, against the accused. At this stage magistrate is not

to weigh the evidence meticulously as if he were the trial court.

The standard to be adopted by the magistrate in scrutinizing the

evidence is not the same as the one which is to be kept in view

at the stage of framing charges." (para 10 of Kewal Krishnan

S/o Lachman Dass Vs Suraj Bhan and Ors 1980 Supp SCC

499). I, therefore, find it to be a fit case to exercise inherent

power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

5. Normally, in these circumstances the Court remands the

matter to concerned Magistrate to pass a fresh order in the light

of settled law. However, considering that this application is

pending for the last 10 years as well as there is no presence on

behalf of Opposite Party No. 2 despite the matter is taken in

revised call and that the Court has already come to conclusion

that impugned summoning order is against the settled position

of law as there is no ground to reach to an opinion that there

was sufficient ground to proceed, therefore, since the all

allegations made in complaint and statements of witness, if

taken at their face value, made out absolutely no case against

the accused, the application is allowed. Impugned summoning

order dated 03.08.2011 passed in Complaint Case No. 1778 of

2009 (Lalmani vs. Virendra Pratap and others), under Sections

406, 120B, 417, 418, 419, 420, 468, 504, 506 IPC, is hereby set

aside.

Order Date :- 14.9.2022

AK

Digitally signed by AWADESH

KUMAR

Date: 2022.09.14 17:40:34 IST

Reason:

Location: High Court of Judicature at

Allahabad