Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 128 (ALL)

Rahul @ Abhinav Kumar v. State of U. P.

2022-02-01

SURESH KUMAR GUPTA

body2022
JUDGMENT : Suresh Kumar Gupta, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.G.A. for the State through Video Conferencing. 2. This appeal has been preferred under Section 14 (A) (1) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the summoning order dated 15.12.2020 passed by Special Judge, (SC/ST Act), Unnao and impugned charge-sheet No. 162 of 2020 dated 3.7.2020 submitted by investigating officer in Special Case No. 9 of 2021, F.I.R./Case Crime No. 136 of 2020, under Sections 147, 323, 324, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(da)(dha) of SC/ST Act, Police Station-Purwa, District-Unnao. 3. Before arguing the case on merits, learned counsel for the appellants while pressing the present appeal submits that after submission of charge-sheet the appellants have been summoned by order dated 15.12.2020 and the Court below while summoning the appellants has materially erred and did not follow the dictum of law as propounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various cases that summoning in criminal case is a serious matter and the Court below without dwelling into material and visualizing the case on the touch stone of probability should not summon accused person to face criminal trial. It is further submitted that the Court below has not taken into consideration the material placed before the trial Court alongwith charge-sheet and, therefore, the trial Court has materially erred in summoning the appellants. The Court below has summoned the appellants through a printed order, which is wholly illegal. 4. It has been further submitted that the impugned summoning order dated 15.12.2020 is not a judicial order as it has been passed on a printed proforma without recording any reasons in support of satisfaction for taking cognizance against the appellants and merely the case, Section, date of the order and date of the summon have been filled. 5. It is next submitted that no offence as described in the F.I.R. or in the statement of the witnesses recorded during the course of investigation has taken place and the whole story as narrated in the F.I.R. as well as in the statement of the witnesses has been cooked and manufactured, therefore, the Court below has materially erred in summoning the appellants, as such the orders are liable to be set aside. 6. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon a decision of this Court in Ankit vs. State of U.P. and Another, 2010 (1) JIC 432 and has submitted that order impugned being on a printed proforma is clearly without application of judicial mind and hence is liable to be quashed on this ground alone. 7. Learned A.G.A., however, opposes the contention of learned counsel for the appellants on the ground that the Court below keeping in view the charge-sheet and material submitted therewith, after applying judicial mind and finding sufficient material on record, summoned the appellants alongwith other co-accused persons to face trial and, therefore, there is nothing illegal so far as the order of summoning passed by the Court below is concerned. 8. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. The certified copy of the impugned summoning order dated 15.12.2020 has been annexed with the appeal in support of the contention. From a perusal of the above order, it is evident that it is a typed proforma, in which name of the parties, police station, case crime number, section of the offence and date fixed is filled by someone in hand writing. It appears that the blanks in the printed proforma filled up by some Court employee and the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Unnao has just put his initial which leads to the conclusion that the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Unnao has passed the order in a mechanical manner without application of judicial mind. 10. Despite there being a series of the decisions of the Apex Court and this Court disapproving such practice of passing orders on printed proforma by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Unnao, order being passed in such a manner which shows that judicial mind has not been applied in passing the order. This type of order has already been unsustainable by this Court in the case of Ankit (supra) relying on in a number of decisions of the Apex Court. 11. In view of the above, the conduct of the trial Court concerned in passing orders on printed proforma by filling up the blanks without application of judicial mind is objectionable and deserves to be deprecated. 11. In view of the above, the conduct of the trial Court concerned in passing orders on printed proforma by filling up the blanks without application of judicial mind is objectionable and deserves to be deprecated. The summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter and order must reflect that the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act had applied his mind to the facts as well as law applicable thereto. 12. So far as quashing of charge-sheet and entire proceedings is concerned, from the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the appellants. All the submission made relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court. At this stage, only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 , State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and Another, 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the appellants have got a right of discharge according to the provisions prescribed in Cr.P.C. as the case may be, through a proper application for the said purpose and he is free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the Trial Court. 13. The prayer for quashing the proceedings and charge-sheet is refused. 14. In view of the above, the present appeal is partly allowed. 15. Accordingly, the impugned cognizance order and consequently summoning order dated 15.12.2020 passed by learned trial Court is hereby quashed. The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order after applying the judicial mind. 16. Accordingly, this appeal under Section 14(A)(1) is finally disposed of. 17. Let this order be communicated to the Court below for necessary compliance.