Allahabad High Court
Sukhram Chauhan And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 23 November, 2022
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 84
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19248 of 2022
Applicant :- Sukhram Chauhan And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Lokesh Kumar Dwivedi,Lavkush Kumar Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mahesh Chandra Tiwari
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1. Heard Sri Lavkush Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for applicants and Sri M.C. Tiwari, Advocate for Opposite Party No. 2.
2. In the complaint there are serious allegations against applicants regarding forgery on the basis of documents annexed alongwith complaint. Learned counsel for applicants submits that to summon any accused is an order of serious nature and for that there must be a formation of opinion as required under Section 204 Cr.P.C. that there are sufficient ground to proceed against any accused. However, the same is absent in the impugned summoning order dated 02.06.2022.
3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No. 2, vehemently argued that in the impugned order Trial Court has narrated all the facts including the documents annexed alongwith complaint and thereafter only it come to the conclusion that there are sufficient ground to proceed against applicants.
4. In order to meet out the rival submissions, I myself have carefully perused the impugned summoning order and find that after noting down the narration of facts as narrated in complaint and that in support of averments in complaint the complainant recorded his statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and statements of PWs-1 and 2 under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and thereafter by way of following few lines Trial Court has summoned the applicants:
"???????? ?? ?????? ???????/ ??????? ?? ???? ?? ????????? ??????, ????? ???? ??????, ?????, ????? ?? ??????? ????? ???????? ???? 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B ??o ?o ??? ?? ????? ???? ?????? ???? ?? ????? ??? ?????????? ???? ???? ????? ???? ???? ?????????? ?? ??????? ???? ???? ???? ?? ??????? ????? ???????? ??? ????? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ?? ?"
5. The above referred reasoning given in the impugned order does not reflect about any formation of opinion as required under Section 204 Cr.P.C. as well as in view of judgment passed by Supreme Court in Lalankumar Singh and others vs. State of Maharashtra, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1383 wherein it is held that:
"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?."
6. In view of above, since impugned order is bereft of any reasoning, the same cannot be sustained.
7. In the result, application is allowed. Impugned order dated 02.06.2022 passed by Judicial Magistrate/ Apar Civil Judge (J.D.) Court No. 1, Agra in Complaint Case No. 499 of 2020 (Gaurav vs. Sukhram), under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC, Police Station Hariparvat, District Agra, is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to Trial Court to pass a fresh order after considering the material available on record and in terms of judgment passed by Supreme Court in Lalankumar Singh (supra) within four weeks.
Order Date :- 23.11.2022/AK
(Sl. No. 9 out of 248 fresh cases)
