Allahabad High Court
Abdul Sattar And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 9 May, 2023
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:99096
Court No. - 68
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6261 of 2023
Applicant :- Abdul Sattar And 4 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Pawan Giri
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Mr. Pawan Giri, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. Ashutosh Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the summoning order dated 01.10.2022 passed by Court of learned First Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mirzapur in Complaint Case No.1133 of 2022, (Mangroo Vs. Abdul Sattar and others), Mirzapur, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 403 I.P.C., Police Station-Chunar, District-Mirzapur.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicant no.3 was married to Abdul Sattar wherein opposite party no.2 is mediator. Due to strained relations between two, applicant no.3 and her husband, the case under Sections 498A I.P.C. and Section 125 Cr.P.C. were lodged from the side of the applicant no.3 against family members of her husband. Taking help of opposite party no.2, the family of the husband has proceeded to get the complaint lodged against the applicants with false and frivolous allegations for the purpose of harassment. After recording the statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., applicants have been summoned vide order dated 01.10.2022, hence, the present case has been filed. He further submits that the concerned court below has passed the summoning order dated 01.10.2022 in a cryptic and mechanical manner without application of judicial mind as no prima facie satisfaction has been recorded by concerned Magistrate. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the judgement and order of this Court in Mahboob and others Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2017 (2) JIC 320 (All) (LB) and Smt. Shiv Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2017 (2) JIC 589 (All) (LB). Therefore, the same is liable to be quashed.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer, however, he could not dispute the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicants.
I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.
In Mahboob and others vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in 2017 (2) JIC, 320, (All) (LB), specifically in paragraph Nos. 11 and 12, this Court has observed as follows:-
"(11) In the present case, the learned Magistrate has not conducted any inquiry so as to satisfy himself that the allegations in the complaint constitute an offence and when considered alongwith the statements recorded and the result of such inquiry. There is ground for proceedings against the petitioners under Section 204 CrPC. There is nothing on record to show that the learned Magistrate has applied his mind to arrive at a prima facie conclusion. It must be recalled that summoning of accused to appear the criminal court is a serious matter affecting the dignity self-respect and image in the society. A process of criminal court cannot be made a weapon of harassment.
(12) Learned Magistrate has passed a very cryptic order simply by saying that the statement of complainant as well as witnesses recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. are perused and accused are summoned such order per se itself illegal which could not stand the test of law."
Reliance is also placed upon the judgement of this Court in the case of Smt. Shiv Kumar and others vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in 2017 (2) JIC, 589, (All) (LB). Paragraph No. 10 of the aforesaid judgement is relevant for the controversy in hand. The same is as under :-
"10. Learned Magistrate was required to at least mention in the order about the prima facie satisfaction for summoning 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."
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced on behalf of learned counsel for the parties as well as in view of judgments passed in the case of Shiv Kumar (supra) and Mahboob (supra) the impugned summoning order dated 01.10.2022 is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted to the court concerned to decide the same afresh by passing a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law, after hearing both the parties, within a period of three months from today.
With the aforesaid directions, the present application stands allowed.
Order Date :- 9.5.2023
Rahul.
