SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Ashok Chauhan And 2 Ors vs State Of U.P. And 2 Ors on 11 February, 2020

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Court No. – 67

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 4182 of 2020

Applicant :- Ashok Chauhan And 2 Ors

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors

Counsel for Applicant :- Ashish Kumar,Neeraj Kumar

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon’ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

Heard Sri Ashish Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State.

By means of the present 482 Cr.P.C. application, the applicants are assailing the legality and validity of the order impugned dated 29.06.2018 whereby the applicants were summoned under Sections 498A IPC.

Learned counsel for the applicants has assailed the order on the two folds. Firstly, the order impugned is a non speaking order except the narration of statement under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C.. All of sudden, learned Magistrate has jumped to the conclusion that the applicants may be summoned under Section 498A, there is no whisper with regard to the application of judicial mind by learned Magistrate. Secondly, since the parties are residing differently, the complained was filed at Azamgarh and the applicant is residing at Badaun and there the mandatory provision contemplated under Section 202(1) Cr.P.C. ” and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction”

The inquiry must be conducted by the learned Magistrate or by the police, the same is completely missing in the impugned summoned order. The said inquiry is mandatory and its non-adherence would put a big question mark on the validity of the cognizance/summoning order

Learned counsel for the applicants has relied upon the judgments of this Court in the case Vinay Kumar @ Kallu and another Vs. State of U.P. and another in Application U/S 482 No. 23895 of 2018 decided on 02.08.2018, judgement of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vijay Dhanuka and others Vs. Najima Mamtaj and others reported in (2014)14 SCC 638 and judgement of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Abhijit Pawar Vs. Hemant Madhukar Nimbalkar and another reported in (2017) 3 SCC 528 to buttress his contention.

Submission made by the counsel for the applicant, prima facie, is appealing.

I have gone the order impugned order and judgement, which is well short of standard prescribed in the aforesaid judgements and therefore, liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 29.06.2018 is hereby quashed with the direction that the matter is remanded back before the concerned Magistrate, Azamgarh to re-visit the entire issue and hold an inquiry as contemplated under Section 202(1) Cr.P.C. and only after getting sufficient matterial about the culpability, would pass well reasoned and speaking order within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

With the aforesaid direction, the present 482 application is disposed of.

Order Date :- 11.2.2020

Abhishek Sri.

 

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation