498A Quash Judgment 14.02.2020- In Complaint Case – The summoning orders cannot be passed without the application of Judicial Discretion or Mind.
 |
| 498A Quash Judgment 14.02.2020 |
498A Quash Judgment 14.02.2020- In Complaint Case-In this article, the Allahabad High Court held that no judicial mind was applied before the passing of the summoning order, and such order cannot be accepted as a proper judicial order which is passed after following the procedure of law. The impugned summoning order dated 29.04.2006 passed by the court of Magistrate is cryptic and does not stand the test laid down by the court. Therefore, the summoning order against the accused persons is hereby set aside.
Case Brief- 498A Quash Judgment 14.02.2020
According to the facts mentioned in this case, a complaint was filed at the Police Station under Sections 498A, 504, and 506 of IPC against the accused persons.
It is stated that an FIR was registered by the police, and the Magistrate, Kanpur Dehat passed a summoning order under Sections 498A, 504, and 506 of IPC against the accused persons.
The Present Application is filed by the accused persons under Section 482 of CrPC challenging the summoning order dated 29.04.2006 passed by the Magistrate in this case under Sections 498A, 504, and 506 of IPC pending before the court of Magistrate.
_________________________________________________
Read The Latest Article- 498A Quash Judgement 16.11.2022- Himachal Pradesh High Court - General, Vague and Omnibus Allegations against the Brother-in-law. FIR Quashed.
Arguments- 498A Quash Judgment 14.02.2020
The advocate appearing on behalf of the accused persons submitted that the summoning order dated 29.04.2006 is wholly arbitrary, and therefore is liable to be set aside by the court.
It is also submitted that the court of Magistrate has simply recorded a conclusion that on the basis of the complaint, the statement of the person who filed the complaint, and the witnesses, prima facie an offense under Sections 498A, 504, and 506 of IPC appears to have been committed.
It is further submitted that the conclusion recorded by the court of Magistrate is not preceded by a discussion of the allegations made in the complaint, and the statement of the person who filed the complaint, and the witnesses as recorded under Sections 200 and 202 of CrPC.
Arguments- 498A Quash Judgment 14.02.2020
It is also submitted that in the absence of any findings recorded by the court of Magistrate, on the basis of allegations made in the complaint, the statements of the person who filed the complaint, and the witnesses, no prima facie satisfaction was recorded by the court of Magistrate for summoning the accused persons under Sections 504, and 506 of IPC.
The advocate also submitted that as such, no inquiry was committed by the Magistrate before passing the impugned summoning order dated 29.04.2006, and the Magistrate has passed a very cryptic order by simply saying that the statement of the person who filed the complaint as well as witnesses recorded under Sections 200, and 202 of CrPC are perused, and such order is itself illegal and cannot stand the test of law.
Therefore, he prayed for setting aside the summoning order dated 29.04.2006 against the accused persons.
_________________________________________________
Referred Judgements- 498A Quash Judgment 14.02.2020
- Mahboob and others Vs. State of U.P. and another
- Smt. Shiv Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P. and another
- Hariram Verma and others Vs. State of U.P. and another
- M/s. Pepsi Food Ltd. & another Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate & others
- Paul George Vs. State
- S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Neeta Bhalla
- Anita Malhotra Vs. Apparel Export Promotion Council
Court’s Opinion- 498A Quash Judgment 14.02.2020
It was held by the court in the above-mentioned cases that at the stage of summoning, the magistrate is not required to examine or evaluate the evidence, and it is not required to record the detailed reasons and only a brief order which indicates the application of mind is expected from the Magistrate.
It was also held that in the impugned order there is nothing that can indicate that the Magistrate had considered the facts of the case in hand before passing the summoning order, and when it appears that no judicial mind was applied before the passing of the summoning order, such order cannot be accepted as a proper judicial order which is passed after following the procedure of law.
The court had also held that the Magistrate has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint, and both oral and documentary evidence in support thereof, and the magistrate has to carefully scrutinize the evidence brought before the court and on record, and may even the Magistrate himself can put the questions to the person who filed the complaint and the witnesses to elicit the answers to find the truth of the allegations, and then examine if any offense is committed by all or any of the accused.
Court’s Opinion- 498A Quash Judgment 14.02.2020
It has also held that the order may depend upon the nature of the matter of the case, which is being dealt with by the court, and the nature of the jurisdiction being exercised by the court as to in what manner the reasons may be recorded.
It is a well-settled principle of law that while summoning an accused, the court has to check the prima facie evidence, and the inquiry under Section 202 of CrPC is limited only to ascertain the truth of allegations made in the complaint, and to check whether the material placed by the person who filed the complaint a prima facie was made out of summoning or not.
It has also been held that it is not proper for the High Court to consider the defense of the accused person or conduct an inquiry in respect of the merits of the allegations, but if the document which is beyond suspicion or doubt is placed by the accused person, and if it is considered that the allegations against the accused cannot stand, then in order to prevent injustice or abuse of process of law, it is incumbent on the High Court to look into those documents, and grant relief to the concerned person by exercising their jurisdiction under Section 482.
Court’s Opinion- 498A Quash Judgment 14.02.2020
In the present case, the court held that it is clear that the impugned summoning order dated 29.04.2006 passed by the court of Magistrate is cryptic, and does not stand the test laid down by the court.
Therefore, the present criminal application is allowed, and the summoning order dated 29.04.2006 passed by the Magistrate, Kanpur Dehat in the case under Sections 498A, 504, and 506 of IPC pending in the court of Magistrate is set aside, and the Magistrate shall pass a fresh order.
_________________________________________________
Conclusion- 498A Quash Judgment 14.02.2020
In this article, the Allahabad High Court held that it appears to be a case in which the accused persons should succeed, and the impugned summoning order and the complaint case are liable to be quashed.
It is also held that the impugned summoning order dated 29.04.2006 passed by the court of Magistrate is cryptic, and does not stand the test laid down in the court.
Therefore, the summoning order against the accused persons is set aside.
Join Facebook Group - Apaizers Mens Rights
Blogger Comment
Facebook Comment