"State vs Suraj Bhatt & Others" In Which By
2023 Latest Caselaw 1880 UK

               Office Notes,
              reports, orders
SL.          or proceedings or
      Date                                      COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No            directions and
             Registrar's order
              with Signatures

                                 C482 No.585 of 2021
                                 Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

Mr. V.P.Bahuguna, learned counsel for the applicants.

Mrs. Mamta Joshi, learned Brief Holder for the State.

Mr. Sandeep Kothari, learned counsel for the private respondent.

This C482 Application arises out of the proceedings of Criminal Case No.138 of 2020, "State Vs. Suraj Bhatt & Others" in which by virtue of the summoning order dated 12.02.2020, as passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Doiwala, District Dehradun, the applicants have been summoned to be tried for the offences under Section 498A and 504 of the IPC.

It is these proceedings, which has been subjected to challenge and the challenge has also been given to the summoning order.

When the C482 Application was initially argued, at the stage of admission and for granting of the interim order, the Court felt that there could be a possibility of settlement, owing to the fact, that the controversy arose out of a matrimonial dispute, hence, the respondent was noticed. The respondent has put in appearance through Mr. Sandeep Kothari, learned counsel.

Mr. Sandeep Kothari, learned counsel makes a statement that though respondent no.2 is not present today, but, as per the instructions received by him, she is reluctant to enter into a settlement, owing to the misunderstanding, which persists between respondent no.2 and the applicant.

In that eventuality, this Court is of the view that forcing upon the parties to enter into a process of settlement, would be absolutely a fruitless and a futile exercise and rather wastage of time for litigation.

Heard learned counsel for the parties. Particularly, the counsel for the respondent was called upon to answer the query of the Court with regards to the summoning order dated 12.02.2020 as passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Doiwala, Dehradun, which happens to be a cyclostyle order passed by filling in the blanks in a prior prescribed format, and that too without application of mind and without even rational reconsideration of the material available before it.

On this limited count itself, since the summoning order dated 12.02.2020 happens to be in contravention of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment of M/s Pepsi Food Limited Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and Others, as reported in AIR 1998, Supreme Court 128, this C482 Application would stand partly allowed to the extent that impugned summoning order dated 12.02.2020 would stand quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Court of Judicial Magistrate to pass a fresh summoning order but only after considering the entire material and applying his rational mind that as to whether in the given set of circumstances, at all, the accused/applicants are required to be summoned or not?

Subject to the limited extent so far as it relates to the summoning order, the C482 Application partly stands allowed.

(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.) 20.07.2023 Sukhbant