The applicant in the instant case had filed an application u/s 482 of Cr.P.C and had sought the quashing of the charge sheet, summoning order and the entire proceedings that were initiated for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 406 I.P.C.
The application was allowed by the Court, and it was held that the order was passed without the application of judicial mind and without following the guidelines of the Supreme Court.
Case of the Prosecution:
According to the prosecution, the applicant had indulged in raising fake invoices with regards to vehicle services and had gained Rs 3,08,593 in connivance with the District Basic Education Officer, Hathras.
Arguments put forth before the Court:
Learned Counsel for the applicant raised the following contentions before the Court:
- Counsel submitted that the FIR was lodged on the basis of frivolous and false allegations.
- It was argued that the Court did not follow the guidelines of the Supreme Court, which deals with the summoning of the victim.
- Learned Counsel argued that while passing the order, the Court had not taken into consideration the material put forth and the contents of the charge sheet.
- It was further submitted that the summoning order was passed on a printed proforma without recording any reasons in support of satisfaction for taking cognizance against the applicants and only basic details like date of order, date of summoning, title and sections were mentioned.
- All the facts mentioned in the FIR were cooked and manufactured and were not based on real facts.
Contention raised by the AGA.
It was contended that the summoning order was passed after considering all the facts of the case and after the application of the judicial mind.
Reasoning of the Court:
After going through all the contentions, facts and various legal precedents, the Court concluded that the conduct of the Judicial officer who passed the impugned order was objectionable because the order was passed on a printed proforma by filling up the blanks and without the application of judicial mind.
It was also observed that summoning of an accused in a criminal case was a serious matter and the order must clearly show that the Magistrate had applied his mind to the facts and had also followed the applicable laws which was not done in the instant case.
The Hon’ble Court remarked that the order passed by the CJM, Hathras was cryptic and did not stand the test of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
The application was allowed, and the impugned order was quashed.
CJM, Hathras was directed to decide afresh the application for summoning and pass appropriate orders within two months from the date of receiving the copy of the order.
- Case Details:
Title: Vishnu Kumar Gupta and Another vs State of UP and Another
Case No.:APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 41617 of 2019
Date of Order:11.11.2020
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Manju Rani Chauhan
Counsel for Applicant :- Anshul Kumar Singhal
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.