Narendra Singh .....Applicants vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 2989 UK

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND

                          AT NAINITAL

      Criminal Misc. Application No. 996 of 2021
                   (Under Section 482 Cr.P.C.)



Narendra Singh                                    .....Applicants
                          Versus

State of Uttarakhand and another              ......Respondents

Mr. B.D. Pande, learned counsel along with Mr. Rakshit Joshi, learned
counsel for the applicant.
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 and summoning order dated 07.07.2018 and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 3553 of 2018, "State v. Narendra Singh", pending in the court of learned Upper Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar.

2. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the concerned Magistrate did not apply its mind before passing the impugned order and it is a cyclostyled 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 hereinabove:

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. From the perusal of the summoning order dated 07.07.2018, it is clear that the concerned Magistrate did not apply its mind before taking cognizance; it is a cyclostyled order, where only date, name of parties and sections were recorded which shows that the concerned Magistrate even did not peruse the evidence collected during the investigation, he simply filled up the name of parties, sections and date in the cognizance order, which is not proper.

4. Accordingly, the present misc. application has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of. Impugned summoning order dated 07.07.2018 passed by the Upper Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Case No. 3553 of 2018, "State v. Narendra Singh" is hereby set-aside qua the applicant only.

5. The concerned Magistrate is directed to pass a fresh summoning 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