Jang Bahadur vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
2024 Latest Caselaw 19448 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Jang Bahadur vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 28 May, 2024

Author: Gautam Chowdhary

Bench: Gautam Chowdhary

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:96547
 
Court No. - 90
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 18006 of 2024
 

 
Applicant :- Jang Bahadur
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Abid Ali
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.
 

The present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the cognizance/summoning order dated 11.03.20224 passed by learned Special Judge (POCSO Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Bareilly registered as Criminal Case No. 79 of 2024 (State Vs. Jang Bahadur) arising out of Case Crime No. 0123 of 2023 under Sections 354-A I.P.C. and Section 7/8 of POCSO Act, Police Station G.R.P., Bareilly Junction, District G.R.P. Anubhag Moradabad as well as to quash the proceedings of the aforesaid case and also the charge sheet dated 11.03.2024 filed in the aforesaid case.

Counsel for the applicant confines his arguments to the first part of the submission that the summoning order is bereft of application of mind and has been passed on the cyclostyled copy. He thus argues that the summoning order suffers from the vice of non-application of mind and therefore is liable to be set aside on that ground alone. In support of his submission, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Megh Nath Gupta & another Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2008 (62) ACC 826 as well as Single Judge judgment and order passed by this Court in the case of Ankit Vs. State of U.P. and another [(2009) (9) ADJ 778] on an Application No. 19647 of 2009 filed under Section 482 CrPC on 15.10.2009. He, thus, argues that the summoning order is liable to be set aside in view of the well settled law of this Court. He also placed before me several orders passed by this Court whereby similar orders have been set aside by this Court and the matters have been remanded before the Trial Court for fresh orders in accordance with law.

A perusal of the summoning order impugned in the present proceedings clearly demonstrates that there was no application of mind whatsoever prior to the passing of the summoning order, which has been repelled by this Court in various judgments.

In view of the categorical pronouncements of this Court, the impugned order dated 11.03.2024 by Special Judge (POCSO Act)/ Additional Sessions Judge, Bareilly, is set aside and the matter is remanded before the concerned Magistrate for passing fresh orders of summoning and cognizance if it deems fit.

Consequently, the application is allowed in part and the impugned order dated 11.03.2024 is set aside in terms of the order passed above.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned Court below for its compliance as stated above.

Order Date :- 28.5.2024

S.Ali