Allahabad High Court
Saurav Banerjee vs State Of U.P And Another on 13 January, 2023
Bench: Sadhna Rani (Thakur)
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 71
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 31338 of 2022
Applicant :- Saurav Banerjee
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Siddharth Niranjan,Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Amit Shukla
Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.
By means of this application under section 482 Cr.P.C. the applicant seeks to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this court to quash the summoning order dated 25.4.2022 passed by learned Civil Judge (JD)/ F.T.C. -01, Varanasi in complaint case no. 28675 of 2021, Gurdeep Singh Vs. Saurav Banerjee and others, under sections 419, 420 I.P.C. police station Sigra District Varanasi and also the subsequent proceedings in pursuance thereof.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the impugned order is a cryptic order wherein the Magistrate has not recorded his prima facie satisfaction while summoning the applicant to face trial. His conclusion is not preceded by a discussion of the allegations made in the complaint or in the statements of the complainant and his witnesses as recorded under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. respectively. It is further submitted that in the application under section 482 Cr.P.C.No. 36025 of 2922 of Arup Kumar Chaterjee one of the co accused persons, the coordinate bench of this court was pleased to allow that application and quash the summoning order dated 25.4.2022 above.
Reliance is placed on the judgment of this court in case of Smt. Shiv Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P. and another in 2017 (2) JIC 589 (Alld) Lucknow Bench wherein the court held that " learned Magistrate was required to at least mention in the order about the prima facie satisfaction to summon the accused. The order must reflect that the learned Magistrate has exercised his jurisdiction in accordance with law, after satisfying himself about the prima facie allegations made in the complaint. The accused cannot be summoned mechanically merely by writing that perused the statements under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C."
In the judgment M/s Pepsi Food Ltd. & another Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and others, 1998 U.P. CRR 118, the Apex Court held that summoning of the accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Law cannot be set into motion as a matter of fact. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He is to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and that would be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing the charge home to the accused. It is that the Magistrate is not a silent spectator. The Magistrate has to carefully scrutinize the evidence brought on record and he may even himself put question to the complainant and his witnesses to illicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine whether offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused persons.
In Paul George Vs. State 2002 (Crl.L.J.) 996, the Apex Court held that "we feel that whatever may be the outcome of the pleas raised by the applicants on merit, the order disclosing all the matter must indicate application of mind to the case and some reason be assigned for negating or accepting such pleas".
Thus, from the above judgments, it is clear that passing the summoning order against an accused to face trial is very important matter which initiate a criminal proceeding against him. Such order cannot be passed summarily or without applying judicial mind.
If we go through the impugned order, the Magistrate concerned in very short has mentioned the facts of the case which do not depict the whole matter in dispute. The court concerned has not even discussed the statement of the complainant and statements of the witnesses and thus, without taking into consideration the statements of the witnesses and without mentioning the complete facts the order has been passed in a very cryptic manner, which does not disclose that the Magistrate concerned even applied his mind to the facts of the case. The impugned order clearly lacks the reflection of the application of judicial discretion and such order cannot be accepted as a proper and legal order passed after following the due procedure. Hence, it is explicitly clear that the impugned summoning order does not stand the tests laid down by the law.
The present application succeeds and is allowed. The summoning order dated 25.4.2022 passed by learned Civil Judge (JD)/ F.T.C. -01, Varanasi in complaint case no. 28675 of 2021, Gurdeep Singh Vs. Saurav Banerjee and others, under sections 419, 420 I.P.C. police station Sigra District Varanasi is hereby quashed.
The proceedings are restored back to the court concerned to pass a fresh and detailed summoning order in the light of the observations made as above.
Order Date :- 13.1.2023
Gss
