Praveen And 7 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 1102 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 67
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 108 of 2023
 

 
Applicant :- Praveen And 7 Others
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Uttar Kumar Goswami
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

Heard Shri Uttar Kumar Goswami, learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. Perused the record.

This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is being moved invoking the plenary powers of this Court for quashing of charge sheet no.99/2021 dated 31.5.2021, summoning order dated 22.7.2021, N.B.W. dated 13.12.2022 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalesar Etah as well as entire proceeding of Case No.4006 of 2021 (State vs. Praveen and others), arising out of Case crime no.156 of 2021, u/s 147, 323, 504, 506, 336, 452 I.P.C., P.S.-Jalesar, District-Etah.

Basic plank of the submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicants is that the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalesar Etah has passed the order of taking cognizance on a typed proforma without recording his satisfaction. The cognizance order dated 22.7.2021 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalesar Etah is being reproduced herein below :

"?????????? ??????, ???????? ???? ????, ????, ????? ?????, ?????? ????, ??? ????, ????????, ??????, ?? ??????? ???? ???? ??????-99 ??? 2021 ???????? ????- 147, 323, 504, 506, 336, 452 ???????? ?? ???????? ???? ???? ??????? ???? ???????? ?? ?????? ????? ??? ?????????? ??????? ?? ??????? ????- 147, 323,504, 506, 336, 452 ???????? ?? ???????? ??????? ???? ???? ?? ???? ???????? ??? ????????? ??????? ???? ???? ??? ??????? ??? ???? ??????? ??? ????? ????? ????? ?????? ???????? ?????? ?????????? ?????? 27.09.2021 ?? ??? ???"

Contention of learned counsel of the applicants is that there is no injury report so as to establish the submission of charge u/s 147, 323, 504, 506, 336, 452 I.P.C. To buttress his contention, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lalan Kumar Singh & Ors vs. State of Maharashtra decided on 11.10.2022. Learned counsel has emphasized upon para-28 of this judgment, which is being extracted hereunder :

"28. 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 vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, 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 9 (2015) 4 SCC 609 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."

I have keenly perused the judgment of Lallan Kumar Singh (supra), in which the Hon'ble Apex Court has stressed upon the need that 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. On comparing this ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court with the order impugned, it is culled out that the learned Magistrate has seen the entire case diary and the record of the case and according to him a prima facie case has been made out u/s 147, 323, 504, 506, 336, 452 I.P.C. to proceed against the applicant. Accordingly, the Magistrate has taken the the cognizance of those offence and proceeded with the case.

Learned A.G.A. has rebutted the contentions raised by learned counsel for the applicants by relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Atul Kumar Jain & ors vs. State of U.P. and another decided on 11.5.2016 in Application u/s 482 No.14501 of 2016.

I have perused the judgement of Atul Kumar Jain (supra). The relevant extract of the judgment is being reproduced herein below :

"After perusing the F.I.R. when this Court tried to look into the material collected by the Investigating Officer, the court found that statements of witnesses mentioned in the charge sheet dated 11.3.2016 namely Smt. Deepika Jain, Shri Narendra Kumar Rastogi and Shri Rajesh Rastogi and other formal witnesses recorded by the Investigating Officer u/s 161 Cr.P.C. have not been appended with this criminal misc. application and only the statement of accused persons recorded by the Investigating Officer u/s 161 Cr.P.C. have been appended as Annexure no.3 in which they all have denied the allegations and have desired to press their defence before the concerned court through counsel. As no material available in case diary has been placed before this Court by the accused-applicants to find out as to whether the allegations as disclosed in the F.I.R. have been further corroborated by material collected in case diary or not, there appears no such material made available on file to discredit the opinion drawn by the Investigating Officer in the charge sheet dated 11.3.2016. The cognizance taken thereupon by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffar Nagar and summons issued against the applicants vide order dated 30.3.2016 stand uncontroverted in view of non filing of material available on record and goes to show that the uncontroverted allegations, as made in the F.I.R., establish a prima facie case against the applicants.

In view of this, the impugned order dated 30.3.2016 as well as the criminal proceeding in pursuance thereof do not suffer from any illegality or impropriety, much less than any abuse of court's process."

Thus, it is clear that at this juncture of taking cognizance the learned Magistrate need not to spell out elaborate reasons and if the Magistrate feels satisfied that a prima facie case is made out against the applicants to be tried for those offences, he is well within the power to take cognizance of those offences. From the perusal of impugned order, I do not find any illegality or perversity which requires any interference.

The present application is devoid of merit and accordingly dismissed.

Order Date :- 11.1.2023

M. Kumar