# Bharat Singh @ Jitendra Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 2 ILRA 592
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-04-29
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 18120 of 2020
- **Bench:** Shamim Ahmed
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/bharat-singh-jitendra-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-46160
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Sections 498-A - Husband or
relative of a husband of a woman
subjecting her to cruelty , Sections
323 - Punishment for voluntry causing
hurt , Sections 506

## Text

592 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

25. In view of the above, 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.

26. In light of the judgments referred
to above, it is explicitly clear that the order
dated 29.04.2019 passed by Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate-3, Varanasi is
cryptic and does not stand the test of the
law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
Consequently, the cognizance order dated
29.04.2019 cannot be legally sustained, as
the Magistrate failed to exercise the
jurisdiction vested in him resulting in
miscarriage of justice.

27. Accordingly, the present Criminal
Misc. Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C succeeds
and is allowed. The impugned cognizance
order
dated
29.04.2019
passed
by
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-3,
Varanasi in Misc. Case No.361 of 2019,
under Sections 504, 506, 395 IPC, Police
Station Bhelupur, District Varanasi is,
hereby, quashed.

28. The Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate 3, Varanasi is directed 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
this Court as well as the direction contained
in the judgments referred to above within a
period of three months from the date of
production of a certified copy of this order.

29. With the above direction, the
application filed U/S 482 Cr.P.C. stands
allowed.
----------
(2021)02ILR A592
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.12.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.

Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 18120 of 2020

Bharat Singh @ Jitendra Singh ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Lakshman Singh, Sri M.K. Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.

(A) Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 107 - Security
for keeping the peace in other cases ,
Section 116 - Inquiry as to truth of
information .

Application filed for quashing the notice/order
passed by the respondent no.3, Sub Divisional
Magistrate, under section 107/116 Cr.P.C.

HELD:- It appears that the substance of
allegations against the applicant has not been
mentioned in the impugned notice issued under
Section 107/116 Cr.P.C. The said notice appears
to be vague and, hence, is liable to be quashed.
(Para - 7)

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. disposed of. (E6)

List of Cases cited:-
2 All. Bharat Singh @ Jitendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
593
1. Aurangzeb & ors. Vs. St. of U.P. &
anr. , 2004 (5) ACC, 734

2. Ranjeet Kumar & ors. Vs. St. of U.P.
& ors. , 2002 (45) ACC 627

3. Har Charan Vs. St. of U.P. & anr. ,
2008 (61) ACC 540

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shamim
Ahmed, J.)

1.

This
application
under
section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed
for quashing the notice/order dated
16.08.2020
passed
by
the
respondent no.3, Sub Divisional
Magistrate, Jalaun, District Jalaun,
under
section
107/116
Cr.P.C.
(Shyam Singh and others Vs. State
of U.P. and others), Police Station
Kuthond, District Jalaun.

2. Heard Shri M.K. Singh
holding
brief
of
Sri
Lakshman
Singh,
learned
counsel
for
the
applicant and learned AGA for the
State.

3. Learned counsel for the
applicant has contended that the
impugned notice does not contain
the substance of allegations which
have
been
made
against
the
applicant and has been issued in a
routine manner on a cyclostyled
proforma. It is further contended
that the impugned notice is illegal
and is liable to be set aside.

4. In support of his contention,
he
placed
reliance
upon
the
judgment of this Court reported in
2004(5) ACC, 734, Aurangzeb &
others
Vs.
State
of
U.P.
and
another,
2002(45)ACC
627,
Ranjeet Kumar & others Vs. State
of U.P. & others and 2008(61)
ACC 540, Har Charan Vs. Stae of
U.P. & another.

5. Learned A.G.A., on the
other hand, submitted that there is
no
illegality
in
issuing
the
impugned notice as in compliance
of the same, the applicant has to
furnish bonds only.

6. Learned counsel for the
applicant draw the attention of this
Court in similar matter disposed of
the Application under section 482
Cr.P.C No.1833 of 2013 vide order
dated 29.01.2013, copy of the same
is annexed as Annexure No.3 to the
affidavit.

7.

Having
considered
the
aforesaid arguments and perused
the impugned notice and all the
material
brought
on
record,
it
appears
that
the
substance
of
allegations against the applicant
has not been mentioned in the
impugned
notice
issued
under
Section 107/116 Cr.P.C. The said
notice appears to be vague and,
hence, is liable to be quashed and
is, accordingly, quashed.

8. However, it shall be open to
the concerned Magistrate to issue
fresh notice in accordance with
law, if necessary.

9.

With
the
aforesaid
observations,
the
present
application
under
Section
482
Cr.P.C. is finally disposed of only
in respect of applicant.
----------
594 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2021)02ILR A594
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.01.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI
CHAUHAN, J.

Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 19584 of 2020

Kuldeep
Agrawal
@
Deepak
Kumar
Agrawal & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Nitin Chandra Mishra

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.

(A) Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Sections 498-A - Husband or
relative of a husband of a woman
subjecting her to cruelty , Sections
323 - Punishment for voluntry causing
hurt , Sections 506 - Punishment for
criminal intimidation - at the stage of
issuing
process,
the
Magistrate
is
mainly concerned with the allegations
made in the complaint or the evidence
led in support of the same and he is
only
to
be
prima
facie
satisfied
whether there are sufficient grounds
for
proceeding
against
the
accused.(Para -10)

Application
filed
seeking
quashing
the
cognizance/summoning order as well as the
the entire proceedings of the Criminal Case
- first information report lodged by
opposite party no.2 - allegation - her
marriage was solemnized with applicant
no.1 - after some time husband and in-laws
of opposite party no.2 started harassing her
for additional demand of dowry - stripped
her from their house - restitution of
conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu
Marriage Act - pending consideration - After
obtaining
knowledge
of
filing
of
the
aforesaid suit, opposite party no.2 has
engineered the present case against the
applicants as a counter blast to the same.
(Para - 3,4)

HELD:- For issuing process of summon
against
the
applicants,
the
concerned
Magistrate has not applied his judicial mind
at least on his prima facie satisfaction. The
said order is like a routine order which has
been passed in mechanical manner. 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.(Para - 9)

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. allowed. (E6)

List of Cases cited:-

1. U.P. Pollution Control Board Vs Dr.
Bhupendra Kumar Modi & anr. , (2009) 2
SCC 147

2. M/s. Pepsi Food Ltd. & anr, Vs Special
Judicial Magistrate & ors. , 1998 UPCrR 118

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani
Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Nitin Chandra
Mishra,
learned
counsel
for
the
applicant and Mr. Pankaj Srivastava,
learned A.G.A. for the State as well as
perused the entire material available on
record.

2. This application under Section
482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking
quashing
the
cognizance/summoning
order dated 20th January, 2020 as well
as the the entire proceedings of the
Criminal Case No. 51 of 2020 (State
Vs. Kuldeep Agrawal & Others), arising
out of Case Crime No. 0048 of 2019,