Patna High Court
BIPIN KUMARversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The appeal is allowed and the summons order dated 15.10.2019 is quashed.
Summary
The appellant, a school principal, was summoned by a Special Judicial Magistrate in a SC/ST case despite a police investigation that exonerated him. The prosecution alleged that the principal’s son was assaulted and that the principal’s school staff participated in the assault and theft of a gold chain. The magistrate issued summons without recording any reasoning, contrary to the Supreme Court’s pronouncements that a magistrate must apply his mind and be satisfied that the complaint discloses a prima facie offence before issuing process. The appellant challenged the summons under Section 482 of the CrPC, arguing that the order was mechanically issued and violated his right to dignity. Relying on Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate and Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. v. State of U.P., the High Court held that the magistrate’s order was unsustainable and quashed it, allowing the appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether the Special Judicial Magistrate exercised sufficient judicial satisfaction before issuing summons to the appellant under Section 204 CrPC.
- Whether the order summoning the appellant can be quashed under Section 482 CrPC on the ground of lack of reasoning and mechanical issuance.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 202, 204, 482
Subjects
- Criminal Procedure
- Summons
- Section 482 CrPC
- Quashing of order
- Magistrate's satisfaction
- SC/ST special case
- Harassment
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.981 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-4 Year-2019 Thana- SC/ST District- Khagaria
======================================================
Bipin Kumar Son Of Narayan Poddar Resident Of Sanhauli, Police Station-
Chitraguptnagar District- Khagaria (Bihar)
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Reena Devi Wife Of Sri Vijendra Kumar Das Resident Of Village- Nirpur,
Police Station- Chautham, District- Khagaria (Bihar)
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Saket Tiwary, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Binay Krishna, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
4 02-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
counsel for the informant and learned counsel for the State.
3. The present appeal has been filed for quashing the
order dated 15.10.2019 passed in Special SC/ST Case No. 53 of
2019 arising out of Khagaria P.S. Case No. 04 of 2019 by the
learned 1st Additional District & Sessions Judge, Khagaria by
which learned Sessions Judge had issued summons to the
appellant.
4. As per the prosecution case, on 24.01.2019, a
quarrel occurred during Republic Day preparations where her
son was allegedly assaulted by student Deepak Kumar Gupta.
When the informant and her husband came to the school to
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.981 of 2022(4) dt.02-02-2026
2/4
investigate, they were allegedly assaulted by students at the
appellant’s school principal’s instigation and student namely,
Deepak Kumar allegedly snatched the informant’s gold chain.
5. The police after investigation submitted final form
exonerating the accused. The Magistrate differed with the final
form and has taken cognizance against the accused person by
the impugned order.
6. The impugned order is a cryptic and non-speaking
order. The Magistrate has not discussed the merits of the case
with regard to the appellant who is Principal of Jawahar
Nvoday Vidyalaya, who was exonerated. The impugned order of
the Magistrate taking cognizance is in teeth of the law laid down
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pepsi Foods Ltd.
v. Special Judicial Magistrate reported in (1998) 5 SCC 749,
which has been held as follows:-
“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 on to
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.981 of 2022(4) dt.02-02-2026
3/4
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.”
7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Delhi
Race Club (1940) Ltd. v. State of U.P. reported in (2024) 10
SCC 690 has held as under:
“30. The aforesaid aspect could be said
to have been completely lost sight of by the High
Court, while rejecting the application filed by the
appellant herein under Section 482CrPC, seeking
quashing of the summoning order.
31. In Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir
Mohammad Tunda [Mehmood Ul Rehman v.
Khazir Mohammad Tunda, (2015) 12 SCC 420 :
(2016) 1 SCC (Cri) 124] , this Court held thus :
(SCC p. 430, para 22)
“22. … The satisfaction on the
ground for proceeding would mean that the
facts alleged in the complaint would
constitute an offence, and when considered
along with the statements recorded, would,
prima facie, make the accused answerable
before the court. … In other words, the
Magistrate is not to act as a post office in
taking cognizance of each and every
complaint filed before him and issue process
as a matter of course. There must be sufficient
indication in the order passed by the
Magistrate that he is satisfied that the
allegations in the complaint constitute an
offence and when considered along with the
statements recorded and the result of inquiry
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.981 of 2022(4) dt.02-02-2026
4/4
or report of investigation under Section 202
CrPC, if any, the accused is answerable
before the criminal court, there is ground for
proceeding against the accused under Section
204 CrPC, by issuing process for appearance.
Application of mind is best demonstrated by
disclosure of mind on the satisfaction. … To
be called to appear before the criminal court
as an accused is serious matter affecting
one's dignity, self-respect and image in
society. Hence, the process of criminal court
shall not be made a weapon of harassment.”
(emphasis supplied)
32. The principle of law discernible
from the aforesaid decision is that issuance of
summons is a serious matter and, therefore,
should not be done mechanically and it should be
done only upon satisfaction on the ground for
proceeding further in the matter against a person
concerned based on the materials collected
during the inquiry.
8. In view of the materials available on record and in
view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate (supra) and
also in the case of Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. v. State of U.P.
(supra), this appeal is allowed.
9. The order dated 15.10.2019 passed in Special
SC /ST Case No. 53 of 2019 arising out of Khagaria SC/ ST
P.S. Case No. 04 of 2019 is hereby quashed.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
tusharika/-
U T
Checking your session…