ABDUL MAJEED AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                 APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8149 of 2017

Abdul Majeed And 3 Others
                                                           .....Applicant(s)
                                  Versus

State of U.P. and Another
                                                              .....Opposite
                                                                    Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)              :    Rajesh Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)         :    G.A., Vinay Kumar Singh

Court No. - 84
                 HON'BLE JAI PRAKASH TIWARI, J.

List has been revised.

Learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State are
present. None is present on behalf of the opposite party no.2.

This present application has been filed with the prayer to quash the
summoning order dated 04.07.2014, as well as entire proceedings of
Complaint Case No.249 of 2014 (Kamrandeen Vs. Abdul Majeed and
others) under Sections- 323, 506 IPC Police Station Belghat, District
Gorakhpur, pending before learned Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)
Basgaon, Gorakhpur.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the opposite party no.2 and
his family members were demanded additional dowry and harassing the
daughter of applicant no.1. It is further submitted that the applicant no.1
has filed a Suit before Principal Judge, Family Court, Azamgarh on
24.09.2012 being Case No.549 of 2012 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. In the
said case, both the parties have entered into a compromise on 24.01.2017.
It is also submitted that with mala fide intention, the opposite party no.2
has filed a forged and fabricated complaint on 26.04.2014, which was
registered as Complaint Case No.249 of 2014. The statement of opposite
party was recorded under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. on 26.04.2014. The
statement of two witness were also recorded on 21.05.2014. The learned
Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) without going into the merit, has issued the
impugned summoning order dated 04.07.2014. Aggrieved by this
                                                       A482 No. 8149 of 2017
                              2


impugned order the applicants have preferred present application with
prayer to quash the summoning order.

In support of his submission, learned counsel for the applicant has placed
reliance upon the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of M/s.
Pepsi Food Ltd. & another vs. Special Judicial Magistrate & others,
1998 UPCrR 118. Relevant paragraph of the judgment is quoted as
under:-

     "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 the accused.
     Magistrate had 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."

He also placed reliance upon the judgment passed by this Court in case of
Chhaya William (Smt.) & others vs. State of U.P. & another, 2003 (47)
ACC 1017. Relevant paragraph of the same is quoted as under:-

     "I have carefully gone through the law laid down by Hon'ble
     Apex Court. No doubt on one hand the enquiry conducted
     under section 202 Cr.P.C. does not need to be detailed enquiry
     or scrutiny of evidence to that extent which is required for the
     purposes of the trial or conviction, but at the same time, the
                                                                                               A482 No. 8149 of 2017
                                                                     3


                                           Court has not to sit as a silent spectator. It must apply its mind
                                           while passing order for the issue of summonses under section
                                           204(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure."

                                    As held by superior Courts the passing of order of summoning any person
                                    as accused is a very important matter, which initiates criminal proceeding
                                    against him. Such orders cannot be passed summarily or without applying
                                    judicial mind.

                                    In light of this legal position, I have gone through the impugned order. A
                                    perusal of this order indicates that learned Magistrate had written nothing
                                    concerning facts of the case in hand. Neither any discussion of evidence
                                    was made, nor was it considered as to which accused had allegedly
                                    committed what overt act. The accused person of complaint were
                                    summoned for offences mentioned in that application. No reason was
                                    mentioned in the impugned order as to what those documents contain, and
                                    how they help the prosecution case. Impugned order clearly lacks the
                                    reflection of application of judicial discretion or mind. Nothing is there
                                    which may show that learned Magistrate, before passing of the order
                                    under challenge had considered facts of the case and evidence or law.
                                    Therefore, it appears that, in fact, no judicial mind was applied before the
                                    passing of impugned order of summoning. Such order cannot be accepted
                                    as a proper legal judicial order passed after following due procedure of
                                    law.

                                    Therefore, impugned order is quashed. The instant application u/s 482
                                    Cr.P.C. is accordingly, allowed. The case is remanded back to court
                                    concerned with direction to pass afresh the speaking order on point of
                                    summoning in light of points discussed in the body of judgment.



                                                                                         (Jai Prakash Tiwari,J.)
                                    March 25, 2026
                                    S.K.




Digitally signed by :-
SWEETY KANOJIA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad