Allahabad High Court
Rathendra Kumar @ Ravendra Kumar vs State Of U.P. And 2 Ors on 9 July, 2019
Bench: Ram Krishna Gautam
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 79
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 25921 of 2019
Applicant :- Rathendra Kumar @ Ravendra Kumar
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors
Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Kumar Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.
The applicant Rathendra Kumar @ Ravendra Kumar, by means of this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court with prayer to quash the impugned order dated 18.2.2019 passed by C.J.M., Hathras, on release application filed by the applicant in Case No. 2265 of 2018, State Vs. Jayendra Kumar Chaudhary, u/s 323, 325, 308, 504 I.P.C., P.S. Chandapa, District Hathras, whereby the application was rejected.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. representing the State. Perused the records.
Learned counsel for the applicant contended that an application before the Magistrate was moved for release of property attached u/s 83 Cr.P.C. belonging to father of accused i.e. Rathendra Kumar @ Ravendra Kumar with contention that property written in attachment memo is of him and is not of accused Jayendra Kumar Chaudhary. The prayer for release of the same was made. But the trial court has rejected it. Hence this proceeding.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the application.
Considered the rival submissions made by the parties.
Very perusal of application filed before the Magistrate, certified copy of which is on record at page no. 29, it is apparent that applicant Rathendra Kumar @ Ravendra Kumar has said that the property attached u/s 83 Cr.P.C. was of applicant and accused Jayendra Kumar Chaudhary was of no concern either with the house or the household goods, but u/s 83 Cr.P.C. property of the applicant was attached. Accused Jyendra Kumar Chaudhary was not an offender because he had filed a proceeding u/s 482 Cr.P.C. before this High Court as Application u/s 482 No. 26038 of 2018, Jayendra Kumar Chaudhary Vs. State of U.P. and another, and vide order dated 1.8.2018 coercive process against Jayendra Kumar Chaudhary has been stayed. Hence application for release of property was made. But order of Magistrate reveals that nothing has been adjudicated by the Magistrate except an opinion that accused Jayendra Kumar Chaudhary has not yet been released on bail, there is no ground for release of attached property. Thereby application has been rejected.
A judicial order requires apparent application of judicial mind, whereas same is lacking in the impugned order. There is no appearance of exercise of judicial mind by the Court of C.J.M. on the application. What was prayed in the application?, what was contention?, what was objection?, what was argued?, why this decision? and reason for this decision? are condition precedent for a judicial order. But in the impugned order there is neither reasoning nor decision over points raised nor even mentioning of the same even in an iota by the Magistrate. Rather it seems to very callous executive order, not within the periphery of judicial order.
Hence, in the ends of justice and to avoid multiple proceedings of law, this application is allowed and the impugned order dated 18.2.2019 is set aside. Learned C.J.M., Hathras, to rehear over application moved by applicant Rathendra Kumar @ Ravendra Kumar for release of property attached and to pass a reasoned order at an expedient.
Order Date :- 9.7.2019
Pcl
