Uttarakhand High Court
Jajvinder Singh & Others ... vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 11 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application No. 781 of 2021
(Under Section 482 Cr.P.C.)
Jajvinder Singh & others .....Applicants
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others ......Respondents
Mr. Nandan Arya, learned counsel along with Mr. M.S. Dhapola, learned
counsel for the applicants.
Mr. V.K. Gemini, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State.
Dated: 11th August, 2021
Hon'ble N.S. Dhanik, J. (Oral)
The criminal misc. application has been
filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the
impugned cognizance order dated 19.01.2021
and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.
7083 of 2018, "State v. Jajvinder Singh & others"
under Sections 420, 406 & 120-B of IPC, pending
in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate
Udham Singh Nagar.
2. Learned counsel for the applicants
submits that on 09.12.2020, the coordinate
Bench of this Court directed the concerned
Magistrate to pass fresh cognizance order as per
law, but the concerned Magistrate has not passed
the proper cognizance order. In order to buttress
his argument, learned counsel placed reliance on
the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
Case of Pepsi Foods Ltd. & another v. Special
Judicial Magistrate & others; reported in (1998)
5 SCC 749. Para 28 of the said judgment is
quoted herein below:
"28. Summoning of an accused in a
criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal
law cannot be set into motion as a matter of
course. 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 has to examine the nature of
allegations made in the complaint and the
evidence both oral and documentary in
support thereof and would that be sufficient
for the complainant to succeed in bringing
charge home to the accused. It is not that
the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the
time of recording of preliminary evidence
before summoning of the accused. The
Magistrate has to carefully scrutinize the
evidence brought on record and may even
himself put questions to the complainant
and his witnesses to elicit answers to find
out the truthfulness of the allegations or
otherwise and then examine if any offence is
prima facie committed by all or any of the
accused."
3. Accordingly, the present misc.
application has been filed under Section 482
Cr.P.C. is disposed of. Impugned order dated
19.01.2021 passed by the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Case
No. 7083 of 2018, "State v. Jajvinder Singh &
others" is hereby set-aside qua the applicants
only.
4. The concerned Magistrate is directed to
pass a fresh cognizance order as per law in the
light of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Pepsi Foods Ltd. & another v.
Special Judicial Magistrate & others (supra),
within a period of three months from today.
(N.S. Dhanik, J.)
11.08.2021
AK
