Allahabad High Court
Jaylal vs State Of U.P. And Another on 15 July, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:114265
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
(Sl. No.2)
Court No. - 78
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 42881 of 2024
Applicant :- Jaylal
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Deepak Kumar Srivastava,Dharnidhar Pandey,Ganesh Shanker Srivastava,Kamal Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J.
1. Heard Sri Kamal Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri S.K.Ojha, learned AGA-I for the state.
2. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the summoning order dated 13.09.2024 as well as the entire proceeding of Criminal Complaint No. 425 of 2015 (Dinesh Chandra Tripathi vs. Kanhaiya and others), under Sections 323, 504, 506, 452, 427 IPC, P.S. Dumariaganj, District Siddharth Nagar, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant herein has been summoned by the impugned order dated 13.09.2024, which is a cryptic order and has not considered in detail the statement of witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Therefore, he seeks quashing of the said order and the entire proceeding of the instant complaint case. Learned counsel for the applicant has also placed reliance upon Section 204(2) Cr.P.C. and submits that it is mandatory for the Magistrate before issuing process and summoning the accused persons, the Magistrate is duty bound to analyze each and every statement recorded under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. He has also placed reliance upon the judgment passed by this Court in Smt. Haneefa and 4 others vs. State of U.P. and another, 2024: AHC:112422. Learned counsel for the applicant further relying upon the statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C, whose statements were also recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. in the instant complaint case, submits that there are several contradictions in their statements. Earlier, in 161 Cr.P.C. statement, they have not supported the prosecution case.
4. Per contra, learned AGA submits that so far as the summoning of the accused persons is concerned, the basic requirement for the Magistrate is to consider the entire material available on record and record its satisfaction that a prima facie case is made out for summoning the accused persons. Once such satisfaction is recorded by the Magistrate, there can be no illegality in the summoning order against the accused persons. So far as the contradictions in the statement under Section 161 and 202 Cr.P.C. is concerned, it is submitted that since the police has not recorded the statements of those witnesses in a proper manner due to which the protest petition was filed by opposite party no.2 seeking a fair investigation, which was treated as a complaint case and since in the statement before the Court under Section 202 Cr.P.C., the witnesses have categorically supported the allegations as made in the complaint that itself supports the allegations of the complainant that the police has not properly investigated the case. Once it has been treated as a complaint, the material to be considered is the complaint, statements under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and any other documents filed along with the complaint. Therefore, learned AGA submits that there is no illegality in the summoning order passed against the applicants herein which has considered in detail that the allegations made in the complaint and also recorded its categorical satisfaction that a prima facie case is made out against the applicant.
5. Having heard the rival submission made by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the record of the case. For an incident dated 31.07.2008, an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed by the opposite party no.2 on 02.09.2008. It was allowed and the FIR was directed to be registered. Accordingly on 17.10.2008 an FIR being Case Crime no. 158 of 2008 was registered at P.S. Dumariyaganj, District Siddharth Nagar against the applicant herein. The matter was investigated by the police and a final report was submitted by recording the statement of various witnesses. In the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the police has recorded that the witness Rajiv son of Sankata Prasad Tiwari did not support the allegation and Kailash Chandra has also stated that he has not seen the incident. On the basis of the aforesaid statement recorded by the police, a final report was submitted, which was duly contested by the opposite party no.2 by filing a protest petition. The said protest petition was treated as a complaint case. In the complaint case, in support of his allegations, the complainant has examined the said witnesses Rajiv and Kailash Chandra, who have duly supported the allegations as made in the complaint. Thus, it is apparent that the police has not properly investigated the case and wrongly recorded the statement of witnesses namely Rajiv and Kailash. The trial court after considering the entire material available on record, vide impugned order dated 13.09.2024, has summoned the applicant. The said order reads as under:
"???????? ??? ??? ???
??????? ??? ?????? ?? ????? ?? ?? ?? ??????-31.07.2008 ?? ??? ???? 11.00 ??? ??? ??? ????????? ?? ?????? ????? ?? ???? ?? ??? ??????? ???? ?????? ?? ???? ????? ?? ?????? ????? ???? ??? ??? ???? ?? ???????? ?? ??????? ?? ??? ???? ??? ?? ?? ?? ????? ?? ??????? ??? ??? ??? ?? ?????-????? ??????? ???? ???? ??? ?? ??? ????? ?? ???? ???? ???, ?? ?? ????? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ??? ?? ??????? ???? ???? ????? ?? ???? ????????? ???? ??? ????? ???????? ???? ??? ??? ????? ?????? ?? ??? ??? ???? ???? ??????? ?? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ???? ??? ??????? ?? ??? ???? ???? ?? ????? ??? ????? ?????? ?? ?? ???? ??? ??????? ?????? ??? ??? ????? ???? ???, ?? ??????? ?? ?? ???? ??? ??? ??? ????? ?? ??? ?? ??? ?? ????-???? ?? ???? 12,000/-????? ?? ?????? ???? ????? ?? ???? ?? ????? ???? ?? ?? ?????? ??? ????????? ???? ?? ????? ?? ????? ????????? ????? ??????? ???????????? ?? ????????? ???? ????, ???? ?? ?? ??? ????????? ? ???? ?? ???????? ??? ?? ????????? ???? ???????? ???? ???
??????? ?????? ????-200 ?????????? ?? ???????? ???? ???? ????, ?????? ??????? ?????? ???? ?????? ?? ????? ?? ?????? ???? ??? ?? ??? ????-202 ?????????? ?? ???????? ???? ????? ?? ?????? ??? ???????? ?????????-1 ????? ?????? ? ?????????-2 ???? ?? ???????? ???? ??? ???
??????? ?????? ???????? ??????? ??? ????? ??????? ???????????? ?? ???? ??? ????????? ???? ?? ?????????, ?????????, ????????? ??????? ????????? ???? ???????? ????????? ??????? ??????????, ????? ????, ???? ?????, ???? ???? ?????? ????, ???? ????? ? ???? ?? ????????? ????? ?? ??? ???
??????? ?? ??????? ???????? ?? ???? ??? ???????? ?? ?????? ?????
??????? ?????? ????-200 ?????????? ?? ???????? ??? ???? ??? ?? ?? ???? ?????? 31.07.2008 ?? ??? ???? 11.00 ??? ??? ????? ????? ??? ???? ???? ????? ?? ?? ???? ??? ????????? ?? ?????? ????? ?? ???? ????? ??????? ???? ????? ???? ???? ?? ??????? ??? ?? ????? ???? ?? ???????? ???? ????? ???? ??? ????? ???? ??? ??? ? ?? ????? ?? ??????? ???? ???? ??? ??? ?? ?????-????? ??????? ???? ???? ? ??? ?? ??? ????? ?? ???? ???? ???? ?? ?? ?????? ?? ??????? ??? ?? ??? ?? ?? ???? ????? ?? ???? ??? ?? ?? ????? ????? ???? ???? ???? ??? ? ????? ????? ?? ??? ??? ???? ??? ?? ????? ??? ???? ?? ???? ????? ???? ?????? ???? ?? ?? ???? ???? ?? ??? ??? ???? ????? ?? ???? ?? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ??? ??? ??? ??? ????? ???? ??? ???? ???? ??? ??? ???? ???? ????? ?? ?????? ??? ??? ?? ?????????, ?????? ?????, ??????? ????, ????, ????? ???? ??? ???? ?? ??? ???? ?? ???? ? ??? ???? ????? ????????? ?? ???? ???? ???? ?? ???? ???? ???? ?? ???? ??? ???? ????? ?? ??? ???? ??????? ?? ??? ?? ???? ?? ?????? ???????? ?????????-1, ?????????-2 ?? ??????? ?? ????? ?? ?????? ???? ??? ???
???????? ?????? ?? ?????? ??????? ??? ???? ?? ?? ???????? ????????? ?? ???? ????? ?? ????? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ????????? ???????, ?????, ???????, ?????, ??????, ????, ??????? ???? ?????? ???????, ?????, ??? ?????, ??????, ????????, ??????????, ????????, ?????????, ????? ?????, ??? ?????, ?????????, ????? ? ???? ????? ?? ??????? ????-323, 504, 506, 452, 427 ????????? ?? ???????? ??????? ????????? ???????? ???? ?? ???? ???????? ?????? ?? ??? ??? ??? ?????? ?? ??????? ??? ???????? ?? ??? ??????? ?????? ???? ???
????
?????????? ???????, ?????, ???????, ?????, ??????, ????, ??????? ???? ?????? ???????, ?????, ??? ?????, ??????, ????????, ?????????, ????????, ?????????, ????? ?????, ??? ?????, ?????????, ????? ? ???? ????? ?? ??????? ????-323, 504, 506, 452, 427 ????????? ?? ???????? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ??????-31.10.2024 ?? ??? ??? ???? ???? ??????? ?????? ????? ????? ??? ??? ????"
6. From perusal of the entire order, it cannot be said that the said order is a cryptic order as is being submitted by learned counsel for the applicant and the Magistrate has discussed the entire case of the complaint, statements of witnesses and it has been categorically recorded that P.W.1 and P.W.2 have also supported the allegations as made in the complaint. Thereafter the trial court has recorded its satisfaction and prima facie case is made out against the applicant, thereupon the applicant has been summoned.
7. So far as the submission of learned counsel for the applicant that the provisions of Section 204 (2) Cr.P.C. have not been complied with, it would be relevant to take note of the provisions of Section 204 (2) Cr.P.C., which reads as under:
"204(1) If in the opinion of a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence there is sufficient ground for proceeding, and the case appears to be -
(a) a summons case, he shall issue his summons for the attendance of the accused, or
(b) a warrant case, he may issue a warrant, or, if he thinks fit, a summons, for causing the accused to be brought or to appear at a certain time before such Magistrate or (if he has no jurisdiction himself) some other Magistrate having jurisdiction.
(2) No summons or warrant shall be issued against the accused under sub-section (1) until a list of the prosecution witnesses has been filed."
8. From the plain reading of the said provision, it is apparent that if the Magistrate is of the opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused and taking cognizance in the matter, he shall summon the accused persons. The only requirement under Section 204 (2) that no summons or warrants can be issued unless a list of prosecution witnesses is filed.
9. It is not a case of the applicant that no such list was produced by the complainant or no witness was examined in the complaint. It is apparent even from the impugned order that the witnesses were examined, who supported the prosecution case.
10. Accordingly, this Court do not find any good ground to entertain the instant application.
11. In view thereof, the instant application lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 15.7.2025
Ashish Pd.
(Anish Kumar Gupta,J.)
