Uttarakhand High Court
The Applicant Puts A Challenge To ... vs Unknown on 21 September, 2023
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.1888 of 2023
Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
Mr. D.N. Sharma and Ms. Manju
Bahuguna, learned counsel for the applicant.
Mr. B.C. Joshi, learned Assistant
Government Advocate for the State.
The applicant puts a challenge to the
proceedings of Criminal Case No.2165 of
2023, "State Vs. Mahesh Kumar Aggarwal",
for his alleged involvement in commission of
offences under Section 279, 304-A, 427 and
201 of the IPC contending therein that on the
date when the accident had chanced, he was
not the owner of the vehicle because the same
has already been handed over to the
competent authority for declaring it as to be
scrap and the same was not being utilized by
him when the alleged offence was committed,
coupled with the fact, that he contends, that
he has been falsely implicated in the
commission of offence, and as such, no charge
of offence is made against him 'with an intent
to cause an injury', would be in violation of
the provisions contained under Section 211
of the IPC.
Learned counsel for the applicant
submits that no liability could be fastened
upon him, owing to the accident, which has
chanced resulting into the death of late Mr.
Vipin Kumar, who was said to be travelling on
a motorcycle and met with an accident on
06.01.2021.
Owing to the fact, and the tenacity of the
argument of the learned counsel for the
applicant qua the disposal of the vehicle for
being declared as a scrap as per the
agreement dated 13.11.2020, the said process
of handing over of the vehicles is in
contravention to the provisions of the Motor
Vehicles Act, and the same cannot be read
and appreciated by this Court by way of an
evidence in the exercise of my powers under
Section C482 of the Cr.P.C.
All these aspects, as to what impact
would the agreement have for the purpose of
handing over the vehicle for being declared as
to be a scrap, which was an offending vehicle
causing an accident on 06.01.2021, all these
aspects are required to be dealt with by the
trial Court, which has summoned the present
applicant by an order of 16.08.2023.
The learned counsel for the applicant
argues that the summoning order dated
16.08.2023 is rather a cyclostyled order and
the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, District
Udham Singh Nagar, has not applied its mind
while passing the summoning order.
In fact, this Court is not in agreement
with the argument extended by the learned
counsel for the applicant, for the reason
being, that summoning of an accused person
for facing a criminal trial does not intend an
elaborate deliberation, on the evidence, which
is being relied upon by the trial Court
justifying summoning of an accused as a
principle, which has been enunciated by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment of
Bhushan Kumar and Another Vs. State
(NCT of Delhi) and Another as reported in
2012 (5) SCC 424, and, in accordance with
the observations made in paragraph no.13
and 14 of the said judgment, it only prescribes
that the process, which has to be issued by
the Court calling upon a person to appear,
should apparently show that the Court has
applied its mind but it does not mean that an
explicit and detailed deliberation is required to
be made expressing an opinion by the
Magistrate on merits justifying the necessity
of summoning of an accused person. The
relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder:-
"13. Section 204 of the Code does not
mandate the Magistrate to explicitly state the
reasons for issuance of summons. It clearly states
that if in the opinion of a Magistrate taking
cognizance of an offence, there is sufficient ground
for proceeding, then the summons may be issued.
This section mandates the Magistrate to form an
opinion as to whether there exists a sufficient ground
for summons to be issued but it is nowhere
mentioned in the section that the explicit narration of
the same is mandatory, meaning thereby that it is
not a prerequisite for deciding the validity of the
summons issued.
14. Time and again it has been stated by this
Court that the summoning order under Section 204
of the Code requires no explicit reasons to be stated
because it is imperative that the Magistrate must
have taken notice of the accusations and applied his
mind to the allegations made in the police report and
the materials filed therewith."
The logic, which has been assigned by
the Hon'ble Apex Court, is that a 'sufficient
reason' should not be alternatively read as to
be a good reason for summoning of an
accused person.
Thus, in the light of the observations
made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph
13 and 14 of the said judgment as extracted
above, this argument of the leaned counsel for
the applicant with regards to the propriety of
the summoning order, dated 16.08.2023,
being without application of mind, is not
acceptable by this Court.
Thus, this C482 Application is not
required to be ventured into by this Court
while exercising the inherent powers. The
same is, accordingly, liable to be dismissed.
However, all questions of facts, which
have been attempted to be argued by the
learned counsel for the applicant before this
Court, at the stage of C482 Application, would
still be left open for him to be argued when he
faces the trial of the Criminal Case No.2165 of
2023, "State Vs. Mahesh Kumar Aggarwal".
Subject to the aforesaid, the C482
Application stands dismissed.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)
21.09.2023
Sukhbant
