Allahabad High Court
Gyanendra Kumar And Another vs State Of Up And Another on 9 July, 2019
Bench: Karuna Nand Bajpayee
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 64
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 25769 of 2019
Applicant :- Gyanendra Kumar And Another
Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Raj Kumar Sharma
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J.
This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking the quashing of the order dated 4.4.2019 passed by the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad as well as the entire proceedings of Case No. 823 of 2018, State versus Rajmani, arising out of Case Crime No. 660 of 2015, u/ss 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, P.S. Colonelganj District Allahabad pending in the court below.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants.
The sole submission raised by the counsel for the applicants is that a detailed application seeking discharge of the applicants was moved before the court below. Learned counsel for the applicants has drawn the attention of this Court to the Annexure-6 to this application which is copy of the discharge application. A perusal of the impugned order dated 4.4.2019 whereby the aforesaid discharge application has been rejected would show that the court below has not adverted its judicial mind to any of the grounds pleaded in the application. The impugned order is cryptic, cursory and does not reflect even a semblance of judicial application of mind. Submission is that though it is not needed that the court below should have passed a very elaborate order or that it should have entered into a roving inquiry into all pros and cons of the factual aspects of the case, but while deciding the discharge application the court below must have considered the grounds as have been taken and pleaded on behalf of the applicants in the discharge application. By not adverting to any of the pleas or the grounds taken in the discharge application and passing a summary order without any reference even to the allegations which may constitute the charge would only demonstrate the non-judicial application of mind and shall go to vitiate the proceedings.
Heard learned AGA and perused the record.
While opposing the submissions raised on behalf of the learned counsel for the applicants learned AGA has not been able to dispute that the impugned order does not contain any kind of reasoning worth the name. After perusing the record of the case and the impugned order this Court finds reason to hold that the impugned order cannot be sustained. It is true that no elaborate reasonings or elaborate discussions about the facts and circumstances of the case are needed while framing of the charge but the impugned order must have reflected some kind of judicial application of mind and should have shown that at least the allegations of the case and the pleas that have been raised by the counsel on behalf of the applicants have been looked into and considered by the court below.
In this view of the matter, the impugned order stands quashed with the direction that the applicants may move another discharge application within two weeks from today. If any such application is moved by the applicants before the court below, the court below shall look into the same and shall pass appropriate orders on the point of framing of charge in accordance with law.
The application is accordingly allowed.
Order Date :- 9.7.2019
CPP/-
