# Anand Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P. & Anr. Opp. Parties

- **Citation:** (2024) 2 ILRA 1155
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-02-20
- **Case number:** Application u/s 482 No. 1531 of 2024
- **Bench:** Rajesh Singh Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/anand-kumar-pandey-v-state-of-u-p-anr-opp-parties-51309
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

1156 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(A) Criminal Law - Validity of Printed
Proformas in Cognizance Proceedings -
The Code of criminal procedure, 1973 -
Section 482 - Inherent power, Section
190- Cognizance of offence by Magistrate,
Section 204 - Issue of process, Indian
Penal
Code,
1860
-
Sections
406,420,467,468 - Judicial orders cannot
be allowed to be passed in a mechanical
manner either by filling in blank on a
printed
proforma
or
by
affixing
a
readymade seal etc. of the order on a plain
paper. (Para -17)

Case involved a criminal complaint filed against
Applicant - Accused-applicant summoned using
a printed proforma without assigning reasons in
mechanical manner - without application of
judicial mind - for facing trial - entire criminal
proceedings - quashing of - hence petition.
(Para - 3 to 6)

HELD: - Magistrate's order taking cognizance
was invalid. Use of printed proformas without
assigning reasons was objectionable. Judicial
officers must apply their minds to the facts and
law before taking cognizance. Summoning an
accused person without assigning reasons is
illegal. Summoning order quashed. Matter
remitted
back
to
trial
court
for
fresh
consideration. (Para - 18 ot 22)

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

2 All. Anand Kumar Pandey Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1155
couple who got married with each other
and continued to lead a peaceful life and
raise a family, and respect for obeying the
law of the land. This Court has time and
again reached to the conclusion that true
love between the individuals, one or both
of who may be a minor or at the verge of
majority, cannot be controlled through
rigours of law or State action. The cases as
the present one are those where the dilemma
of the Judge, which though may be rare, has to
take into account the dedicate balance which
the constitutional court or courts of law have
to strike a balance between the law and its
strict application and the repercussions of its
judgments and orders by application of such
laws in the society as a whole and the
individuals who are before it.

[17]. When the scale of justice has to
be weighed, they are not on the basis of
mathematical
precision
or
the
mathematical formulas or theorems, but at
times, while on one side of the scale there is
the law and other side of scale may carry
the entire life, happiness and the future of
toddlers, their parents and the parents of
their parents. The scale that reflects and
portrays such pure happiness sans any
criminality would definitely equal the scale
carrying the law as the application of law is
meant for maintaining the rule of law and
an orderly society.

[18]. Thus, in the light of the above
discussion of factual and the legal aspects of
the issue, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the subsistence of respective trials
of the applicants would make their lives and
new couple horrible and terrific. They would
lead their life under the sword of democles and
may sometimes adversely impact their inter-se
marital relationship. This is not the objective
of the law. The application of law has to be
given a humane face so that it would facilitate
an orderly society and not full of turmoil and
disturbance, therefore, the Court in exercise its
extra-ordinary power u/s 482 Cr.P.C., in order
to achieve the larger goal and interest, allows
all aforementioned four petitions i.e. (1)
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1327 of 2024
(2) APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1677 of
2015 connected with (3) APPLICATION U/S
482
No.
-
3413
of
2014
and
(4)
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6425 of 2023.
The impugned charge sheets, summoning
orders and the entire criminal proceedings
arising out thereof, pending against the
applicants in above mentioned case crime
numbers are hereby quashed.

[19]. All the petitions stand ALLOWED.

[20]. The Senior Registrar of this Court
is directed to communicate this judgment to
the respective sessions courts within 15
days from today for communication and
compliance.

[21]. Copy of this judgment shall be
placed in all aforementioned petitions.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 1155
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 20.02.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

Application u/s 482 No. 1531 of 2024

Anand Kumar Pandey ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Pradeep Kumar, Adarsh Tripathi, Ashutosh
Tiwari, Shubham Tiwari

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
G.A.
1156 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(A) Criminal Law - Validity of Printed
Proformas in Cognizance Proceedings -
The Code of criminal procedure, 1973 -
Section 482 - Inherent power, Section
190- Cognizance of offence by Magistrate,
Section 204 - Issue of process, Indian
Penal
Code,
1860
-
Sections
406,420,467,468 - Judicial orders cannot
be allowed to be passed in a mechanical
manner either by filling in blank on a
printed
proforma
or
by
affixing
a
readymade seal etc. of the order on a plain
paper. (Para -17)

Case involved a criminal complaint filed against
Applicant - Accused-applicant summoned using
a printed proforma without assigning reasons in
mechanical manner - without application of
judicial mind - for facing trial - entire criminal
proceedings - quashing of - hence petition.
(Para - 3 to 6)

HELD: - Magistrate's order taking cognizance
was invalid. Use of printed proformas without
assigning reasons was objectionable. Judicial
officers must apply their minds to the facts and
law before taking cognizance. Summoning an
accused person without assigning reasons is
illegal. Summoning order quashed. Matter
remitted
back
to
trial
court
for
fresh
consideration. (Para - 18 ot 22)

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

1. Dilawar Vs St. of Har., (2018) 16 SCC 521,

2. Menka Gandhi Vs U.O.I., (1978) 1 SCC 248:
AIR 1978 SC 597,

3. Hussainara Khatoon (I) Vs St. of Bihar,
(1980) 1 SCC 81,

4. Abdul Rehman Antulay Vs R.S. Nayak, (1992)
1 SCC 225 and

5. P. Ramchandra Rao Vs St. of Karn., (2002) 4
SCC 578

6. Bhushan Kumar Vs St. (NCT of Delhi), (2012)
5 SCC 424: AIR 2012 SC 1747

7. Basaruddin Vs St. of U.P., 2011 (1) JIC 335
(All)(LB)

8. Sunil Bharti Mittal Vs CBI, (2015) 4 SCC 609:
AIR 2015 SC 923

9. Darshan Singh Ram Kishan Vs St. of Maha.,
(1971) 2 SCC 654

10. Ankit Vs St. of U.P., Appl. u/s 482 No. 19647
of 2009

11. Kavi Ahmad Vs St. of U.P., Criminal Revision
No. 3209 of 2010

12. Abdul Rasheed Vs St. of U.P., 2010 (3) JIC
761 (All)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh Singh
Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned
counsel for the applicant as well as Ms.
Nusrat Jahan, learned A.G.A. for the State
and perused the record.

2. In view of the proposed order, the
issuance of notice to opposite party no.2 is
hereby dispensed with.

3. The instant application under
Section 482 Cr. P.C. has been filed by the
applicants with a prayer to quash the
entire criminal proceedings to the
extent of Applicant in pursuance of
summoning order dated 26.08.2016
passed by the Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate-IV, Court No. 28, Lucknow
in Case No. 2852 of 2016 (State Vs.
Anand Kumar Pandey) arising out of
chargesheet
no.
220/2015
dated
28.12.2015
under
Sections
406/420/467/468 I.P.C. arising out of
Case Crime No. 497 of 2014 dated
14.10.2014
under
Sections
406/420/467/468 I.P.C. P.S Chowk, District
Lucknow in respect of the Applicant.
2 All. Anand Kumar Pandey Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1157

4. The learned Magistrate had taken
cognizance and passed the summoning
order on 26.08.2016. The cognizance was
taken on the printed proforma by filling the
sections of IPC, dates and number and in
the said proforma the learned Magistrate
without
assigning
any
reason
has
summoned the applicants for facing trial.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants
further submits that after submission of
charge sheet and cognizance order on
printed proforma, the applicants have been
summoned mechanically by order dated
26.08.2016 and the court below while
summoning the applicants 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 along with charge
sheet and, therefore, the trial court has
materially
erred
in
summoning
the
applicant. The court below has summoned
the applicant through a printed order, which
is wholly illegal.

6. It is vehemently urged that the
impugned cognizance/summoning order
dated is not sustainable in the eye of law, as
the same has been passed in mechanical
manner without applying the judicial mind,
because on the face of record itself it is
apparent
that
impugned
cognizance/summoning
order
dated
26.08.2016 has been passed by the
Magistrate concerned on printed proforma
by filling up the gaps, therefore the same is
liable to be quashed by this Court.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for
the parties and perused the record.

8. The main issue for consideration
before this Court is that whether the learned
Magistrate may summon the accused
person on a printed proforma without
assigning any reason and take cognizance
on police report filed under Sections 173 of
Cr. P.C. In this regard, it is relevant to
mention here that a Court can take
cognizance of an offence only when
condition
requisite
for
initiation
of
proceedings before it as set out in Chapter
XIV of the Code are fulfilled. Otherwise,
the Court does not obtain jurisdiction to try
the offences under section 190 (1) of the
Cr. P.C. provided that "subject to the
provisions of this Chapter, any Magistrate
of the first class, and any Magistrate of the
second class specially empowered in this
behalf under sub-section (2), may take
cognizance of any offence-

(a) upon receiving a complaint of facts
which constitute such offence,

(b) upon a police report of such facts;
(c) upon information received from any
person other than a police officer, or upon
his own knowledge, that such offence has
been committed.

(2) The Chief Judicial Magistrate may
empower any Magistrate of the second
class to take cognizance under sub-section
(1) of such offences as are within his
competence to inquire into or try."

9. At this juncture, it is fruitful to
have a look so far as the law pertaining to
summoning of the accused persons, by
taking cognizance on a police report filed
under section 173 of the Cr.P.C., is
concerned and the perusal of the case law
mentioned herein below would clearly
reveal that cognizance of an offence on
1158 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
complaint is taken for the purpose of
issuing process to the accused. Since, it is a
process of taking judicial notice of certain
facts which constitute an offence, there has
to be application of mind as to whether the
material collected by the Investigating
Officer results in sufficient grounds to
proceed further and would constitute
violation of law so as to call a person to
appear before the criminal court to face
trial. This discretion puts a responsibility
on the magistrate concerned to act
judiciously keeping in view the facts of the
particular case as well as the law on the
subject and the orders of Magistrate does
not suffers from non-application of judicial
mind while taking cognizance of the
offence.

10. Fair and proper investigation is
the primary duty of the Investigating
Officer. No investigating agency can take
unduly
long
time
in
completing
investigation. There is implicit right under
Article 21 for speedy trial which in turn
encompasses speedy investigation, inquiry,
appeal, revision and retrial. There is clear
need
for
time
line
in
completing
investigation for having in-house oversight
mechanism wherein accountability for
adhering to lay down timeline, can be fixed
at different levels in the hierarchy, vide
Dilawar v. State of Haryana, (2018) 16
SCC 521, Menka Gandhi v. Union of
India, (1978) 1 SCC 248 : AIR 1978 SC
597, Hussainara Khatoon (I) v. State of
Bihar, (1980) 1 SCC 81, Abdul Rehman
Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, (1992) 1 SCC 225
and P. Ramchandra Rao v. State of
Karnatka, (2002) 4 SCC 578.

11. For the purposes of investigation,
offences are divided into two categories
"cognizable" and "non-cognizable". When
information of a cognizable offence is
received or such commission is suspected,
the proper police officer has the authority
to enter in the investigation of the same but
where the information relates to a noncognizable offence, he shall not investigate
it without the order of the competent
Magistrate. Investigation includes all the
proceedings under the Cr. P.C. for the
collection of evidence conducted by a
police officer or by any person other than a
Magistrate (who is authorised by a
Magistrate in his behalf). Investigation
consists of steps, namely (i) proceeding to
spot, (ii) ascertainment of the facts and
circumstances of the case, (iii) discovery
and arrest of the suspected offender, (iv)
collection of evidence relating to the
commission of the offence and (v)
formation of opinion as to whether on the
material collected therein to place the
accused before a Magistrate for trial and if
so to take necessary steps for the same by
filing a charge sheet under Section 173, Cr.
P.C., vide H.N. Rishbud v. State of Delhi,
AIR 1955 SC 196. Thereafter, the learned
Magistrate has to take cognizance after
application of judicial mind and by
reasoned order and not in mechanical
manner.

12. In the case of Bhushan Kumar v.
State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 5 SCC 424 :
AIR 2012 SC 1747, the Hon'ble Apex
Court was pleased to observe that section
204 of the Code does not mandate the
Magistrate to explicitly state the reasons for
issuance of summons. It clearly states that
if in the opinion of a Magistrate taking
cognizance of an offence, there is sufficient
ground for proceeding, then the summons
may be issued. This section mandates the
Magistrate to form an opinion as to whether
there exists a sufficient ground for
summons to be issued but it is nowhere
mentioned in the section that the explicit
2 All. Anand Kumar Pandey Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1159
narration of the same is mandatory,
meaning thereby that it is not a prerequisite for deciding the validity of the
summons
issued.
In
the
case
of
Basaruddin v. State of U.P., 2011 (1) JIC
335 (All)(LB), the Hon'ble Court was
pleased to observed as under:-

"From a perusal of the impugned
order,
it
appears
that
the
learned
Magistrate on the complaint filed by the
complainant has summoned the accused in
a mechanical way filling the date in the
typed proforma. Learned Magistrate while
taking cognizance of the offence on
complaint was expected to go through the
allegations made in the complaint and to
satisfy himself as to which offences were
prima facies, being made out against the
accused on basis of allegations made in the
complaint. It appears that the learned
Magistrate did not bother to go through the
allegations made in the complaint and
ascertain as to what offences were, prima
facie, being made out against the accused
on the basis of allegations made in the
complaint. Apparently, the impugned order
passed by the learned Magistrate suffers
from non-application of mind while taking
cognizance of the offence. The impugned
order is not well reasoned order, therefore,
the same is liable to be quashed and the
petition deserves to be allowed and the matter
may be remanded back to the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Lakhimpur Kheri with
direction to him to go through the allegations
made in the complaint and ascertain as to what
offences against the accused were prima facie
being made out against the accused on the
basis of allegations made in the complaint and
pass fresh order, thereafter, he will proceed
according to law."

13. In the case of Sunil Bharti Mittal
v. Central Bureau of Investigation,
(2015) 4 SCC 609 : AIR 2015 SC 923, the
Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to
observe in paragraph no. 47 of the
judgment as under:

"47.
However,
the
words
"sufficient
grounds
for
proceeding"
appearing in the Section are of immense
importance. It is these words which amply
suggest that an opinion is to be formed only
after due application of mind that there is
sufficient basis for proceeding against the
said accused and formation of such an
opinion is to be stated in the order itself.."

14. In the case of Darshan Singh
Ram Kishan v. State of Maharashtra,
(1971) 2 SCC 654, the Hon'ble Court was
pleased to observe that the process of
taking cognizance does not involve any
formal action, but it occurs as soon as the
Magistrate applies
his
mind to the
allegations and, thereafter, takes judicial
notice of the offence. As provided by
Section 190 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure,
a
Magistrate
may
take
cognizance of an offence either, (a) upon
receiving a complaint, or (b) upon a police
report, or (c) upon information received
from a person other than a police officer or
even upon his
own information
or
suspicion that such an offence has been
committed. As has often been held, taking
cognizance does not involve any formal
action or indeed action of any kind but
occurs as soon as a Magistrate applies his
mind to the suspected commission of an
offence. Cognizance, therefore, takes place
at a point when a Magistrate first takes
judicial notice of an offence. This is the
position whether the Magistrate takes
cognizance of an offence on a complaint, or
on a police report, or upon information of a
person
other
than
a
police
officer.
Therefore,
when
a
Magistrate
takes
1160 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
cognizance of an offence upon a police
report, prima facie he does so of the
offence or offences disclosed in such
report.

15. In the case of Ankit v. State of
U.P. passed in Application u/s 482 No.
19647 of 2009 decided on 15.10.2009, this
Court was pleased to observe in paragraph
No. 8 of the judgment as under-

"8. In the beginning, the name of
the court, case number, state vs. .......
under
section
.........
P.S..........
District.........case crime No........./2009
also have been printed and blanks have
been filled up by mentioning the case
number, name of the accused, section, P.S.
District etc. by some employee. Below afore
cited printed matter, the following sentence
has been mentioned in handwriting

"अप्रियुक्त अंप्रकत की प्रगरफ्तारी मा० उच्ि ्
यायायल द्वारा Crl. Writ No. 19559/08 अंप्रकत ििाम
रा्य में पाररत आदेश प्रदिांक 5.11.08 द्वारा आरोप पत्र िाि होिे
तक स्थप्रगत थी।"

Below aforesaid sentence, the seal of
the court containing name of Sri. Talevar
Singh, the then Judicial Magistrate-III, has
been affixed and the learned magistrate has
put his short signature (initial) over his
name. The manner in which the impugned
order has been prepared shows that the
learned magistrate did not at all apply his
judicial mind at the time of passing this
order and after the blanks were filled up by
some employee of the court, he has put his
initial on the seal of the court. This method
of passing judicial order is wholly illegal. If
for the shake of argument, it is assumed that
the blanks on the printed proforma were filled
up in the handwriting of learned magistrate,
even then the impugned order would be
illegal and invalid, because order of taking
cognizance of any other judicial order cannot
be passed by filling up blanks on the printed
proforma. Although as held by this Court in
the case of Megh Nath Guptas v. State of
U.P., (2008) 62 ACC 826, in which reference
has been made to the cases of Deputy Chief
Controller Import and Export v. Roshan Lal
Agarwal, (2003) 4 ACC 686 (SC), UP
Pollution Control Board v. Mohan Meakins,
2000 (2) JIC 159 (SC) : (2000) 3 SCC 745 :
AIR 2000 SC 1456 and Kanti Bhadra v.
State of West Bengal, 2000 (1) JIC 751 (SC)
: (2000) 40 ACC 441 (SC), the Magistrate is
not required to pass detailed reasoned order
at the time of taking cognizance on the
charge sheet, but it does not mean that order
of taking cognizance can be passed by filling
up the blanks on printed proforma. At the
time of passing any judicial order including
the order taking cognizance on the charge
sheet, the Court is required to apply judicial
mind and even the order of taking cognizance
cannot be passed in mechanical manner.
Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be
quashed and the matter has to be sent back to
the Court below for passing fresh order on
the charge sheet after applying judicial
mind."

16. In the case of Kavi Ahmad v. State
of U.P. passed in Criminal Revision No.
3209 of 2010, wherein order taking
cognizance of offence by the Magistrate
under Section 190(1)(b) on printed proforma
without applying his judicial mind towards
the material collected by the Investigating
Officer has been held illegal.

17. In the case of Abdul Rasheed v.
State of U.P., 2010 (3) JIC 761 (All). The
relevant observations and findings recorded
in the said case are quoted below:-

"6. Whenever any police report
or complaint is filed before the Magistrate,
he has to apply his mind to the facts stated
2 All. Anand Kumar Pandey Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1161
in the report or complaint before taking
cognizance. If after applying his mind to
the facts of the case, the Magistrate comes
to the conclusion that there is sufficient
material to proceed with the matter, he may
take cognizance. In the present case, the
summoning order has been passed by
affixing a ready made seal of the
summoning order on a plain paper and the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had
merely entered the next date fixed in the
case in the blank portion of the ready made
order. Apparently the learned Magistrate
had not applied his mind to the facts of the
case before passing the order dated
20.12.2018, therefore, the impugned order
cannot be upheld.

7. Judicial orders cannot be
allowed to be passed in a mechanical
manner either by filling in blank on a
printed proforma or by affixing a ready
made seal etc. of the order on a plain
paper. Such tendency must be deprecated
and cannot be allowed to perpetuate. This
reflects not only lack of application of mind
to the facts of the case but is also against
the settled judicial norms. Therefore, this
practice must be stopped forthwith."

18. In view of the above, I am of the
considered opinion that the conduct of the
judicial officers 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
the order must reflect that Magistrate had
applied his mind to the facts as well as law
applicable thereto, whereas the impugned
summoning
order
was
passed
in
mechanical manner without application of
judicial mind and without satisfying
himself as to which offence were primafacie being made out against the applicants
on the basis of the allegations made by the
complainant. the impugned cognizance
order passed by the learned Magistrate is
against the settled judicial norms.

19. The order dated 26.08.2016
cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate
on printed proforma without assigning any
reason is abuse of process of law and the
same was without application of mind and
was in a routine manner.

20. In light of the judgments referred
to above, it is explicitly clear that the order
dated 26.08.2016 passed by the ACJM-IV,
Court No. 28, Lucknow in Case No. 2852
of 2016 (State Vs. Anand Kumar Pandey) is
cryptic and does not stand the test of the
law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
Consequently, the cognizance/summoning
order dated 26.08.2016 cannot be legally
sustained, as the Magistrate failed to
exercise the jurisdiction vested in him
resulting in miscarriage of justice.

21. Accordingly, the present Criminal
Misc. Application u/s 482 Cr. P.C. succeeds
and is allowed. The impugned summoning
order dated 26.08.2016 passed by the
ACJM-IV, Court No.28, Lucknow in Case
No. 2852 of 2016 (State Vs. Anand Kumar
Pandey) arising out of chargesheet no.
220/2015 dated 28.12.2015 under Sections
406/420/467/468 I.P.C. arising out of Case
Crime No. 497 of 2014 dated 14.10.2014
under Sections 406/420/467/468 I.P.C. P.S
Chowk,
District
Lucknow
is
hereby
quashed.

22. The matter is remitted back to
Trial Court directing him to decide afresh
the issue for taking cognizance and
summoning
the
applicants
and
pass
appropriate orders in accordance with law
keeping in view the observations made by
1162 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
this Court as well as the direction contained
in the judgments referred to above.

23. Before parting with, I appreciate
the efforts, research and drafting work
prepared by Sri Piyush Tripathi, Research
Associate attached with me, in finding out
the relevant case laws applicable in the
present case.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 1162
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 02.02.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

Application u/s 482 No. 4695 of 2023

Suresh Kumar Singh ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Janardan Singh, Madan Gopal Tripathi

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
G.A., Vishva Nath Pratap Singh

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent
power, Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section
363, 366 & 376 - Trial court has power to
summon persons under Section 319 CrPC
if necessary, during trial - Exercise of
power under Section 319 CrPC must be
sparing and on higher pedestal - Person
summoned under Section 319 CrPC cannot
avail remedy of discharge under Section 227
CrPC.(Para -13)

Applicant seeks to set aside order passed by trial
court - not named in FIR or charge-sheet -
prosecutrix had levelled specific allegation against
petitioner while recording her statement under
Section 164 Cr.P.C - summoned under Section 319
CrPC - Applicant filed discharge application - rejected
by trial court. (Para - 2 to 4,14 )
HELD: - Court upheld impugned order, rejecting
discharge
application
of
applicant
who
was
summoned under Section 319 CrPC, finding no
infirmity or illegality in the trial court's decision. Nonbailable warrant issued against applicant kept in
abeyance. Applicant granted liberty to appear before
trial court to participate in proceedings. Trial court to
expedite trial proceedings.
(Para - 14 to 17)

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. disposed off
(admission stage). (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

1. Jogender Yadav Vs St. of Bihar & ors., 2015 ALLMR (Cri).3707 (SC)

2. Hardeep Singh Vs St. of Punj. & ors., (2014) 3 SCC
92

3. Bhuboni Sahu Vs King, AIR 1949 PC: (1949) Cri LJ
872

4. Yashodhan Singh & Ors. Vs St. of U.P. & anr.,
(2023) 9 SCC 108

5. Sukhpal Singh Khaira Vs St. of Punj., (2023) 1 SCC
289: (2023) 1 SCC (Cri) 454

6. Brijedra Singh Vs St. of Raj., (2017) 7 SCC 706:
(2017) 4 SCC (Cri) 144

7. Dharam Pal Vs St. of Har., (2014) 3 SCC 306:
(2014) 2 SCC (Cri) 159

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,
J.)

1. Heard Mr. Madan Gopal Tripathi,
learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Anirudh
Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A.-I appearing for
the State and Mr. Vishva Nath Pratap Singh,
learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.

2. The instant application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C has been filed by the
applicant to set aside the impugned order
dated 12.04.2023 passed by Additional
Session Judge, (P.O.C.S.O.-I), Ambedkar
Nagar in Session Trial No.23 of 2020 under