Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 375 (ALL)

Prateek Singh v. State of U. P.

2025-02-24

RAJ BEER SINGH

body2025
JUDGMENT : Raj Beer Singh, J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant, in Court today, is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred for quashing of entire proceedings, including the summoning order dated 16.06.2023, of Complaint Case No. 104655 of 2021 (Mahendra Pratap Singh Vs. Prateek Singh), under Section - 326, 506 I.P.C., Police Station - Kalyanpur, District - Kanpur Nagar, pending in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate, 8th, Kanpur Nagar. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is son-in-law of opposite party no.2 and that there was matrimonial dispute between applicant and his wife and in that regard some cases were pending. The allegation that on 14.11.2020, the applicant came at the house of complainant and assaulted the complainant and his son is wholly false. There is no medical examination report of complainant or any other alleged injured. It was submitted that in the absence of any medical examination report, the applicant cannot be prosecuted for offence under Section - 326 I.P.C.. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that impugned summoning order is liable to be set aside. 5. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 have opposed the application and submitted that complainant has made clear allegations that on 14.11.2020, the applicant along with his brother, came at the house of complainant and he has assaulted the complainant and others and he has caused injuries to the son of complainant with a pointed weapon and that version is supported by the witnesses examined under Section - 202 Cr.P.C.. It was stated that the version of complainant is also supported by the C.C.T.V. footage of the house of complainant. The incident took place during COVID-19 pandemic period and due to that reason police did not get the complainant and his son Akshay medically examined. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that a prima facie case is made out against applicant. 6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 7. The incident took place during COVID-19 pandemic period and due to that reason police did not get the complainant and his son Akshay medically examined. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that a prima facie case is made out against applicant. 6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 7. It is well settled that at the stage of issuing process under Section 204 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate is mainly concerned with the allegations made in the complaint and evidence led in support of the same. The Magistrate has to be satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for proceedings against the accused. In Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Another v. Special Judicial Magistrate and Others (1998) 5 SCC 749 , the Supreme Court has held that summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter and that the order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and law governing the issue. In para (28), it was held as under :- "28. 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 of the accused. The Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise 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." 8. The Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise 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." 8. In Punjab National Bank and Others v. Surendra Prasad Sinha 1993 Supp (1) SCC 499, it was held that the issuance of process should not be mechanical nor should be made an instrument of oppression or needless harassment. At the stage of issuance of process to the accused, the Magistrate is not required to record detailed orders. But based on the allegations made in the complaint or the evidence led in support of the same, the Magistrate is to be prima facie satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. 9. Similarly this Court in the case of Smt. Shiv Kumar and others vs. State of U.P. and another , reported in 2017 (2) JIC, 589, (All) (LB) held as under:- "Learned Magistrate was required to atleast mention in the order about the prima facie satisfaction for summoning the accused. The order must reflect that the learned Magistrate has exercised his jurisdiction in accordance with law after satisfying himself about the prima facie allegations made in the complaint. The accused cannot be summoned mechanically merely by writing that perused the statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C." 10. It is also well settled that while passing summoning order, the Magistrate has to be satisfied that ingredients of the offences, for which accused is being summoned, are made out. The Court is not bound to summon a person as accused for all the offences, which have been mentioned in the complaint, rather the Court has to apply mind whether the ingredients of such offences are made out or not. 11. In the instant case, it appears that there was matrimonial dispute between applicant and his wife. As per prosecution version, on 14.11.2020 at 08:30 P.M., applicant, along with his brother, came at the house of complainant and assaulted him as well as his son Akshay and that he has caused injuries to Akshay with a pointed weapon. Though, the complainant has supported the said version in his statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C., but injured Akshay has not been examined under Section - 202 Cr.P.C.. Though, the complainant has supported the said version in his statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C., but injured Akshay has not been examined under Section - 202 Cr.P.C.. Here, it may be pertinent to mention that there is no medical examination report of the injured and thus, there is no such medical opinion whether the injuries sustained by injured Akshay were grievous in nature and the same were caused by any of such weapon / instrument as described in Section - 326 I.P.C.. In the absence of any medical examination report, a person cannot be prosecuted for offence under Section - 326 I.P.C., particularly, when the statement of injured has also not been recorded under Section - 202 Cr.P.C. Offence under Section - 326 I.P.C. is a serious offence and a person can not be summoned for such offence on basis of conjectures and surmises. Learned Magistrate has not considered the facts in correct perspective and committed error by summoning the applicant for offence under Section - 326 I.P.C. In view of aforesaid facts it is apparent that impugned summoning order has been passed in a routine manner without considering facts and position of law and thus, the impugned summoning order is liable to be set aside. 12. In view of aforesaid, the impugned summoning order dated 16.06.2023, is hereby set aside and matter is remanded back to the learned Magistrate to consider the matter and pass an order on point of summoning afresh, in accordance with law. 13. The application under Section - 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of in above terms.