Allahabad High Court
Ramakant And 5 Others vs State Of U.P. & Anothers on 2 July, 2024
Author: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:107372 Court No. - 74 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1451 of 2024 Applicant :- Ramakant And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Anothers Counsel for Applicant :- Anup Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1. Heard Shri Anup Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for applicants and learned A.G.A for State.
2. This Court has passed the following order on 19.04.2024:
"Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State.
Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
Present application u/s 482 Cr PC has been filed by the applicants, praying for quashing the entire proceeding of Complaint No.4026/2019 as well as summoning order dated 16.11.2021 passed by the Judicial Magistrate/Additional Civil Judge (JD) Court No.22, Deoria arising out of Complaint Case no.4026/2019 & 4949 of 2020 (Ramesh Chaubey vs. Ramakant & Ors.) under Sections 323, 504, 506, 380 of IPC, pending before Judicial Magistrate/Additional Civil Judge (JD) Court No.22, Deoria.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that applicant no.6 is married to the son of opposite party no.2. Application no.6 filed a proceeding under Section 125 of Cr PC against her husband on 22.2.2019 and thereafter, as a counter blast, the present proceedings are initiated.
At present, prima facie, it appears that the present criminal proceedings do arise out of the matrimonial dispute between the parties. Therefore, it further appears that, if the parties were to be offered assistance of mediation, they may be able to resolve their differences and bring all disputes and differences between them to an end, amicably.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that the applicants shall deposit a sum of Rs.25,000/- within two weeks from today with the High Court Mediation Centre out of which, Rs.20,000/- shall be paid to opposite party no.2 for appearance before the Mediation Centre on a date to be fixed by the mediation centre. Balance Rs.5,000/- shall be retained by the Mediation Centre towards its expenses.
The matter is referred to the Mediation Centre with a direction that the same may be tried to be resolved after giving notices to both the parties.
It is directed that Mediation Centre shall proceed in the matter expeditiously and preferably within a period of two months.
List the case after two months along with report of Mediation Centre.
Subject to the applicants depositing the amount of Rs.25,000/- as above, till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the aforementioned case.
After depositing the aforesaid amount, notice shall be issued to the parties and in the case, the aforesaid amount is not deposited within the aforesaid period, the interim protection granted above shall automatically be vacated."
3. There is a modification application that the applicants are not able to deposit the said amount of Rs. 25,000/-.
4. Learned counsel for applicants submits that the impugned order is bereft of the requisite reasoning as required under Section 204 Cr.P.C. and for reference he refers the operative part of the following order:
"???? ?????? ???????? ????- 200 ????????? ? 202 ????????? ?? ???? ? ????????? ???????? ?? ???? ?? ?????????? ???????, ???????, ????? ?? ????? ??????? ????? ????- 323,504,506 ??? ???? ???? ???? ??? ? ????????? ?? ????? ??????? ????? ???? 323,504,506,379 ??? ??????? ?????????? ???? ????? ??? ?????? ???? ???? ????? ???
????
?????????? ?????????, ???????, ???????, ????? ?? ????-323,504,506 ????????? ? ???????? ????????? ?? ???? 323,504,506,379 ????????? ?? ????? ??? ????? ????? ??? ???? ???? ??? ??????? ????? ???? ?????? ????? ???????? ???????? ?????? 5.12.2021 ?? ??? ???"
5. In order to appreciate the submissions, the Court has to examine whether the requirement to summon the accused under Section 204 Cr.P.C. is fulfilled or not. It is required that there must be sufficient ground to summon the accused supported by requisite material and for that the Court takes note of the judgement passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Lalankumar Singh and others Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2022) SCC OnLine 1383 and relevant part thereof is reproduced hereinafter :-
"38. The order of issuance of process is not an empty formality. The Magistrate is required to apply his mind as to whether sufficient ground for proceeding exists in the case or not. The formation of such an opinion is required to be stated in the order itself. The order is liable to be set aside if no reasons are given therein while coming to the conclusion that there is a prima facie case against the accused. No doubt, that the order need not contain detailed reasons. A reference in this respect could be made to the judgment of this Court in the case of Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2015) 4 SCC 609 which reads thus:
"51. On the other hand, Section 204 of the Code deals with the issue of process, if in the opinion of the Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence, there is sufficient ground for proceeding. This section relates to commencement of a criminal proceeding. If the Magistrate taking cognizance of a case (it may be the Magistrate receiving the complaint or to whom it has been transferred under Section 192), upon a consideration of the materials before him (i.e. the complaint, examination of the complainant and his witnesses, if present, or report of inquiry, if any), thinks that there is a prima facie case for proceeding in respect of an offence, he shall issue process against the accused.
52. A wide discretion has been given as to grant or refusal of process and it must be judicially exercised. A person ought not to be dragged into court merely because a complaint has been filed. If a prima facie case has been made out, the Magistrate ought to issue process and it cannot be refused merely because he thinks that it is unlikely to result in a conviction.
53. However, the words "sufficient ground for proceeding" appearing in Section 204 are of immense importance. It is these words which amply suggest that an opinion is to be formed only after due application of mind that there is sufficient basis for proceeding against the said accused and formation of such an opinion is to be stated in the order itself. The order is liable to be set aside if no reason is given therein while coming to the conclusion that there is prima facie case against the accused, though the order need not contain detailed reasons. A fortiori, the order would be bad in law if the reason given turns out to be ex facie incorrect."
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order as referred above is bereft of any reason as required while passing an order under Section 204 Cr.P.C. the impugned order dated 16.11.2021 is set aside and considering that this application is being decided finally without issuing notice to opposite party no. 2. therefore in the interest of justice the matter is remitted back to learned trial court to pass a fresh order after taking note of Lalankumar Singh and others (supra).
7. Accordingly, the application is disposed of.
Order Date :- 2.7.2024 Saurabh