Laik Khan And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 4781 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 67
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 41 of 2023
 

 
Applicant :- Laik Khan And Another
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Mukesh Kumar
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

Heard Sri Mukesh Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.

The present 482 application is targeted against the charge sheet dated 11.11.2021 and cognizance/summoning order dated 05.03.2022 as well as entire proceeding of case no. 219 of 2022 (State Vs. Faim Begum and another) arising out of case crime no. 56 of 2021, under Section 406 IPC, P.S. Rajepur, District Farrukhabad pending in the court of Civil Judge (JD)/Jidicial Magistrrate, Havali, Farrukhabad.

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the learned Magistrate has taken the cognizance of the offence without application of mind in a cryptic way. In this regard, learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that coodrinate Bench of this Court in 482 Application No. 38431 of 2022 (Dinesh Kada and 5 others Vs. State of U.P. and another), whereby the coordinate Bench of this Court in similar circumstances have quashed the proceedings.

Per contra learned AGA has cited the judgement of this Court in the case of Atul Kumar Jain and 6 others Vs. State of U.P. thru. Secy. and another passed in Application 482 No. 14501 of 2016 decided on 11.05.2016.

I have perused the both the orders, the reasoning adopted in the aforesaid judgment of Atul Kumar Jain (supra) seems to be more sound and summoning order, it is expected from the learned Magistrate while passing the summoning order shall not pass a detail summoning order. It would be more than sufficient, that after reading the summoning order, it appears that learned concerned Magistrate has gone through the case diary and the conclusion drawn by the I.O. on the material collected and thereafter passes an order. Thus, I do not find any illegality or perversity in summoning order. The order of learned Magistrate is perfectly justified in taking the cognizance of the offence.

I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned summoning order, accordingly, the present 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby rejected.

Order Date :- 13.2.2023

Abhishek Sri.