Allahabad High Court
Rajesh Kumar Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 2 January, 2023
Bench: Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 69
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 28808 of 2021
Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Singh
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Ved Prakash Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vineet Sankalp
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
List revised.
Heard Sri Ved Prakash Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Vineet Sankalp, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Sri B.B. Upadhyay, learned State counsel and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 has been filed by the applicant - Rajesh Kumar Singh with the following prayers:-
"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow the present application and quash the entire criminal proceeding including the impugned charge-sheet dated 18.10.2020 bearing charge sheet no. 01 of 2020 in criminal case No. 272 of 2021 (State of U.P. Vs. Rajesh Kumar) arising out of Case Crime No. 95 of 2020, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Gautam Budh Nagar (Noida) as well as impugned cognizance/summoning order dated 02.06.2021, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial (J.D) F.T.C. Gautam Budh Nagar.
It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to stay the further proceeding of criminal case No. 272 of 2021 (State of U.P. Vs. Rajesh Kumar) arising out of Case Crime No. 95 of 2020, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Gautam Budh Nagar, as well as impugned cognizance/summoning order dated 02.06.2021, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial (J.D) F.T.C. Gautam Budh Nagar (Noida), during the pendency of the present application before this Hon'ble court and/or to pass such other and further order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. Otherwise applicant shall suffer grave irreparable loss and injury"
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the entire allegations as levelled against the applicant are false and concocted. The marriage of the applicant with the opposite party no.2 was solemnized in the year 1992 and it was only on 18.09.2020 for the first time an application was given by the opposite party no.2 against the applicant after which the present First Information Report has been lodged. It is argued that charge sheet in the present matter has been submitted without any cogent evidence. The concerned trial court has passed summoning order on 01.02.2021 which is annexure S.A.1 to the supplementary affidavit dated 13.03.2022 which is on a printed proforma by filling up the name of the applicant and other details which shows that the totally non application of mind. It is argued that no offence is made out against the applicant.
Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing and argued that the applicant is on one or the other pretext delaying the trial. The matter was referred to the Mediation Centre in which the applicant did not appear and as such the mediation has failed. Even previously, the opposite party no.2 filed Transfer Application (Civil) No. 422 of 2021 (Manisha Singh Vs. Rajesh Kumar Singh) in which also the matter sent to the Mediation Centre wherein parties were not willing the mediation. The said transfer application was finally allowed vide order dated 08.04.2022 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court and the case was transferred from the Court of Family Court, Shamli to Principal Judge, Family Court, Ghaziabad. It is argued that this is second event in which mediation has failed as the applicant who is the husband of the opposite party no.2 has not cooperated.
Learned counsel for the State also opposed the prayer for quashing.
After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant is named in the First Information Report. There are evidence collected against him after which charge sheet has been submitted which has been summoned to face trial. There is no willingness to settle the matter amicably as is evident from the fact that mediation has failed of this Court twice after being sent by this Court to the Mediation Centre.
However, time and again, it has been held that orders of printed proforma cannot be passed and the said system of passing such orders have been deprecated. The summoning order dated 01.02.2021 passed in the present matter is on a cyclostyled proforma in which the details have been filled with ink.
In the case of Amit Jani vs. State of U.P. and others: (2020) 5 ADJ 1, a Division Bench of this Court has held as follows:-
"The passing of orders in printed proforma/cyclostyled formats have been deprecated by various High Courts including this court as they do not reflect application of mind. Reference is made to the following judgments:-
1. 2000 ILR (Kar) 4773, Vijaya Bank Vs. State.
2. 2010(9) ADJ 594, Abdul Rasheed Vs. State of U.P. & another.
3. 2009 (67) ACC 532, Ankit Vs. State of U.P. & another.
4. 2010 (3) ADJ 622, Saurabh Dewana Vs. State of U.P."
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and without going into the merits of the case as of now, the summoning order dated 01.02.2021 is hereby set aside.
The present application is allowed to this extent.
The matter is remanded back to the court below to pass fresh order in accordance with law within three weeks from today.
The money as deposited before the Mediation Centre of this Court shall be utilized by the Mediation Centre.
Order Date :- 2.1.2023
M. ARIF
(Samit Gopal, J.)
