Uttarakhand High Court
With vs State Of Uttarakhand on 16 May, 2023
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
C482 Application No. 1888 of 2022
With
IA/1/2022
IA/2/2022
IA/3/2022
Atul Kumar and another ... Applicants
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand
and Another ... Respondents
Advocate: Mr. Nandan Arya, Advocate, for the applicants.
Mr. T.C. Aggarwal, Deputy Advocate General, along with Ms.
Lata Negi and Mr. Sachin Panwar, Brief Holder, for the State.
Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
The present applicants have been summoned, to be
tried for the offences under Sections 354(A), 323, 452,
504 and 506 of IPC in a Criminal Case No. 299 of 2022,
State Vs. Pradeep Verma and others, wherein they have
been summoned by the learned Court of Judicial
Magistrate, Dwarahat, District Almora by an order dated
18.08.2022. The challenge has also been given to the
Chargesheet No. 3 of 2021 dated 29.12.2021.
2. In fact, the attempt, which has been made by the
learned counsel for the applicants while addressing upon
the C482 Application is, as if he wanted this Court to
appreciate the evidence and the statement which has
been recorded by the witnesses under Section 161 of
CrPC, in order to make out a case that no offence, for
which the present applicants have been summoned, is
made out. On the contrary, he has also argued and
pleaded, that the summoning order, as issued by the
learned Court of Judicial Magistrate, Dwarahat, District
Almora in Criminal Case No. 299 of 2022, State Vs.
Pradeep Verma and others, is without application of mind
and for that purposes, he has drawn the attention of this
Court to the pleadings raised in para 21 of the C482
Application and also has made reference to the judgment
of M/s Pepsi Foods Ltd. and another Vs. Special
Judicial Magistrate and others, as reported in 1998
(5) SCC 749, particularly the reference has been made to
para 28 of the said judgment, which is extracted
hereunder:-
"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. Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise 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. The basic implication and purpose of the ratio laid
down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, while recording its
observations in para 28 of the said judgment was, that
when learned trial Court when it takes cognizance for
summoning of an accused person to face a criminal trial,
the Court has to apply its mind and assign reasons for
summoning of an accused person. Assigning of reasons
for summoning of an accused person, does not entail a
detailed deliberation or a finding which is required to be
recorded in relation to the evidences, which were adduced
by the parties and particularly, after consideration of the
statements recorded under Section 161 of CrPC, which
has been attempted to be argued by the learned counsel
for the applicants.
4. The basic intention and purpose of the ratio laid
down in para 28 of the judgment of M/s Pepsi Foods Ltd
(supra) was that before putting the criminal proceedings
into motion, the persons thus intended to be summoned
may not be harassed upon an unnecessary litigation
because summoning of the accused person will always
have its correlative affect of his prestige in the society,
and as such, that is the precaution which is intended to be
taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court, that the Court ought to
apply its mind before an accused is summoned to face a
criminal trial.
5. As per the opinion of this Court, in order to meet out
the said limitation of summoning of an accused person, as
contemplated in para 28 of the said judgment, it doesn't
intend to that at the stage of summoning of an accused
person, the trial Court is suppose to scrutinize each and
every statement meticulously on which the reference is
made during the course of the proceedings, prior to taking
of cognizance and appreciation of a statement recorded
under Section 161 of CrPC, is not an ambit which is
intended to be complied with under para 28 of the said
judgment.
6. Apart from it, if the summoning order dated
18.08.2022, as in the case at hand is considered, the
Court of Judicial Magistrate, Dwarahat, District Almora,
apart from the fact, that it has considered the brief
backdrop of the case under which the offence under
Sections 354(A), 323, 452, 504 and 506 of IPC, are said
to have been made out on the basis of the observations
made by the Investigating Officer in the Chargesheet,
thus submitted against the present applicants. The
summoning order also observed that on appreciation of
the documents brought on record in the Case Diary and
other documents including the Chargesheet, the Court has
observed that prima facie offence under Section 354(A),
323, 452, 504 and 506 of IPC is made out.
8. The tenacity of the arguments of the learned counsel
for the applicants by venturing or calling upon this Court
in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of
CrPC, to scrutinize the evidence, which has been placed
on record by him, is not a scope under C482 Application
to be ventured into and apart from the said ground, which
has been taken in para 21 of the C482 Application, there
is no other sustainable ground, which has been pleaded or
argued by the learned counsel for the applicants while
putting question to the summoning order dated
18.08.2022, as rendered in Criminal Case No. 299 of
2022, State Vs. Pradeep Verma and others. Hence, this
Court declines to venture into the C482 Application, while
exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence, the C482 Application
would stand dismissed.
10. But, dismissal of the C482 Application will not
preclude the present applicants to take the benefit of the
judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court as rendered in the
matters of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau
of Investigation and Another, as reported in 2022
(10) SCC 51, because all the offences, for which the
applicants have been summoned to be tried, they carry a
sentence of less than 7 years and they would be falling
within the zone of the parameters, provided under para
3(e) of the said judgment, for the purposes of dealing
with the cases falling under 'A' category of offences, as
classified by the aforesaid judgment of Satender Kumar
Antil (supra).
11. Subject to the aforesaid exception, the C482
Application lacks merit and the same is, accordingly,
dismissed.
12. All pending applications, stand disposed of
accordingly.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)
16.05.2023
Mahinder/
