# Dr. Satyamvada Singh & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2020) 1 ILRA 437
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-09-25
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 Cr. P.C. No. 992 of 2006
- **Bench:** Neeraj Tiwari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dr-satyamvada-singh-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-45076
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Order-issuance
of
summoning
order
in
not
merely
a
formality-it initiates criminal proceedings
against a person - Courts need to
examine and apply mind to the facts of
the case and testify the incidents of the
complainants as well as accused before
issuing summoning order.

The applicants are teachers and Security
Officer of the College. The College has
assigned administrative posts to them and they
have no criminal antecedents. The learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate had issued summoning
order without considering the facts, application
of mind and even without testing the incidents
of complainants as well as accused. The Chief
Judicial Magistrate should consider each and
every facts about the complainant as well as
accused before issuance of summoning order
and record reasons for the same. The
continuance of criminal proceeding would be
hazardous as no teachers of College would
come forward to hold Administrative post for
smooth and peaceful functioning of Educational
Institution. (Para 17)
Application u/s 482 allowed. (E-10)

## Text

1 All. Siti Networks Limited Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
437
of the averments made in the instant writ
petition by Siti Networks Limited, being
the writ petitioner in both the matters.

4. We not only deprecate the manner in
which the writ petitioner has taken the writ
Court for granted, we must hasten to
emphatically state that this approach is nothing
sort of a gross abuse of process of Court.

5. In such circumstances as stated
above, the writ petition is liable to be
summarily
dismissed
and
stands
accordingly dismissed with costs assessed
at Rs. 50,000/-, which shall be deposited
by the writ petitioner with the State Legal
Services Authority of Uttar Pradesh within
four weeks from date.

6. List this matter four weeks hence
only for the purpose of ascertaining
compliance of the above direction.

7. At this stage, the learned advocate
for the writ petitioner seeks leave of Court
to withdraw the writ petition. Although
withdrawal of a writ petition is not a
matter of right, especially under such
circumstances
as
stated
above,
nevertheless, taking a lenient view, we
allow the writ petition to be dismissed as
withdrawn .
----------
(2020)1ILR 437

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.09.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE NEERAJ TIWARI, J.

Application U/S 482 Cr. P.C. No. 992 of 2006

Dr. Satyamvada Singh & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Jagdish Singh Sengar, Sri Sudhir
Solanki, Sri Umesh Dwivedi

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

A.
Summoning
Order-issuance
of
summoning
order
in
not
merely
a
formality-it initiates criminal proceedings
against a person - Courts need to
examine and apply mind to the facts of
the case and testify the incidents of the
complainants as well as accused before
issuing summoning order.

The applicants are teachers and Security
Officer of the College. The College has
assigned administrative posts to them and they
have no criminal antecedents. The learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate had issued summoning
order without considering the facts, application
of mind and even without testing the incidents
of complainants as well as accused. The Chief
Judicial Magistrate should consider each and
every facts about the complainant as well as
accused before issuance of summoning order
and record reasons for the same. The
continuance of criminal proceeding would be
hazardous as no teachers of College would
come forward to hold Administrative post for
smooth and peaceful functioning of Educational
Institution. (Para 17)
Application u/s 482 allowed. (E-10)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
applicants and learned A.G.A. appearing
for opposite party no. 1.

2. Notice was issued to opposite party no.
2 but neither any one appeared on his behalf nor
any counter affidavit has been filed.

3. Brief facts of the case is that
applicant no. 1 is Lecturer in C.M.P.
438 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Degree College (hereinafter referred to as
the 'College') which is affiliated to
Allahabad
University,
Allahabad
and
holding the post of Chief Proctor also,
applicant no. 2 is Principal and applicant
no. 3 is Security Officer of the said
College. Opposite party no. 2 was the
Publication Secretary of the Students
Union of the College. On 15.03.2005, one
Ranjeet Sonkar, brother of opposite party
no. 2 was caught red handed using unfair
means in the examination and thus his
answer books and other materials were
taken by the Invigilator and deposited in
the Office of the College. After getting
information of this fact, opposite party no.
2 along with 2-3 other persons, forcibly
entered into the Central Room of College
and
pressurized
the
College
Administration to return the materials
recovered from his brother, Ranjeet
Sonkar. They have also threatened the
College Administration, broken Maruti
Van of the Allahabad University and
beaten the driver. For that incident dated
15.03.2005, applicant no. 2 has lodged
F.I.R. at Police Station, George Town,
Allahabad against opposite party no. 2 and
three others under sections 323, 506, 336,
427 I.P.C. giving rise to Crime No. 49 of
2005. A news item of this incident was
also published in daily newpaper Amar
Ujala on 17.03.2005.

4. Opposite party no. 2 again forcibly
entered into the College campus on
11.06.2005 and fired by rifle in the air,
entered in the Office of Principal and
created pressure for admitting the students
for which applicant no. 2 has again given
information to Station House Officer,
George Town, Allahabad on the very same
date i.e. 11.06.2005. Opposite party no. 2
along with other students has again started
pressurising the College Administration in
favour of students, who caught using
unfair means and on 23.06.2005, opposite
party no. 2 along with others committed
theft by breaking the door of Maruti Car of
applicant no. 1 and stolen three sarees,
blowses and Rs. 1500/- and for this
occurence, applicant no. 1 lodged F.I.R.
against the opposite party no. 2 and others
which was registered under sections 379,
506 I.P.C. at P.S. George Town, Allahabad
as Case Crime No. 106 of 2005. Similar
complaint was also lodged by other staff
of the College against opposite party no. 2
on 28.06.2005 for forcibly closing the
College counter by pelting stones for
which applicant no. 2 again wrote a letter
to the Station House Officer, George
Town, Allahabad and made a complaint
against opposite party no. 2 and prayed for
lodging
F.I.R.
vide
letter
dated
28.06.2005.
This
incident
was
also
published in the newspaper.

5. Opposite party no. 2 along with others
continued their tirade against applicants and
other office bearers of the College and indulge
in stone pelting, regarding which news items
were also flashed from time to time in the
newspapers. On 19.07.2005, applicant no. 2
informed A.D.M. City, Allahabad that
opposite party no. 2 along with some unsocial
elements
are
disrupting
the
peaceful
administration of the College by insisting
illegal demands and prayed for deployment of
additional force. When Station House Officer,
George Town, Allahabad has not taken any
action against opposite party no. 2, applicant
no. 1 on 08.08.2005 wrote a letter to Zonal
Officer, L.I.U., Allahabad against opposite
party no. 2 seeking protection to her life as she
had no faith in the police of P. S., George
Town, Allahabad.

6. Again on 06.09.2005, admission
for Evening Classes was going on and
1 All. Dr. Satyamvada Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
439
opposite party no. 2 along with others
entered into the College, interfered with
the process of administration and forcibly
closed the counters and indulge in scuffle
with Rajat Srivastava, Proctor and Security
Officer, applicant no. 2 tried to snatch his
gun and damaged number of Cars of the
teachers, parked in the College campus.
Regarding this occurence, applicant no. 1
lodged F.I.R. dated 06.09.2005 which was
registered as Case Crime No. 151 of 2005
under sections 147, 148, 323, 352, 504,
506, 427 I.P.C. at P.S. George Town,
Allahabad. In the said incident dated
06.09.2005,
applicant
no.
3
was
manhandled by opposite party no. 2 and
others and received injuries for which
medical examination was also conducted
at T.B. Sapru Hospital, Allahabad on the
very same day i.e. 06.09.2005 and doctor
noted three injuries. This incident was also
published in the daily newspaper Amar
Ujala on 07.09.2005.

7. Considering all these incidents,
College
Administration
has
finally
rusticated opposite party no. 2, his brother
and three others from the College for a
period of two years vide order dated
06.09.2005.

8. Learned counsel for the applicants
submitted that as the number of complaints
has been lodged against opposite party no.
2 and others, as a counter blast, just to
pressurize the applicants to withdraw the
criminal proceedings initiated by them
against opposite party no. 2 and others,
opposite party no. 2 has filed impugned
complaint on 07.10.2005 against the
applicants in the Court of Special Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad and the said
complaint was registered as Criminal Case
No. 1668 of 2005 (Ishu Sonkar vs. Dr.
Satyamvada Singh and others). As per
complaint, on 06.09.2005, admission for
Evening Classes was going on and from
the students, affidavits were being taken
by College Administration that they would
not make claim of their admission for day
classes in the future and after hearing this
news, opposite party no. 2 had gone to
enquire from applicant no. 1, where he
was misbehaved by applicant no. 3 and
also abused and chased by applicant no. 3,
who was armed with Revolver. He was
caught and assaulted by them and Chief
Security Officer along with 10-15 persons,
broken the wind screen of the car parked
in the College premises and called the
police. It is further alleged that on
15.09.2005, when opposite party no. 2
went to Office of the Students Union,
without any reason, he was again assaulted
by applicant nos. 1 & 3 and he was also
called by his caste name, beaten, insulted
and ousted from the College Campus.

9. Learned counsel for the applicants
submitted that by perusal of sequence of
facts, this is very much clear that opposite
party no. 2 is an unsocial element involved
in negative students politics and his
brother was caught using unfair means and
for the illegal activities of opposite party
no. 2, several F.I.R.s have also been
lodged. He further submitted that so far as
applicants
are
concerned,
they
are
Principal, Teacher and Security Staff of
the
College
having
no
criminal
antecedents.

10. From perusal of complaints, it is
very much clear that all allegations are
totaly bogus, fabricated, absurd and not
reliable at all coupled with the facts that
the complainant is a person with criminal
antecedents who was rusticated from the
College for a period of two years and
number of complaints, F.I.R.s have also
440 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
been
lodged
against
him.
The
complainant-opposite
party
no.
2
examined himself on 07.10.2005 under
section 200 Cr.P.C. thereafter examined
complainant no. 1, Raju Pasi and his
brother complainant no. 2, Ranjeet Sonkar
under section 202 Cr.P.C., who was caught
using unfair means by the College
Administration.

11.

Learned
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate
has
passed
impugned
summoning
order
dated
01.12.2005
without application of mind and without
recording any reason. He has also not
considered this fact that accused-opposite
parties
in
complaint
are
respected
Principal, Teacher and Secrurity Staff of
the College.

12. It is further reiterated that on one
hand, applicants are academicians having
no criminal antecendents to their credits
and on other hand, complainant against
whom several complaints have been
lodged in police station George Town,
Allahabad and without considering any of
the facts, summoning order has been
issued in a very mechanical way which is
liable to be set aside.

13. No counter affidavit has been
filed on behalf of opposite party no. 2 even
after issuance of notice.

14. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the
submissions made by learned counsel for
the applicants on the basis of counter
affidavit filed by the State and submitted
that as the incident took place, therefore,
after
recording
statements
of
the
complainant under section 200 Cr.P.C. and
witnesses under sections 201 and 202
Cr.P.C., impugned summoning order has
rightly been issued.

15. On being confronted by the
Court, learned A.G.A. could not deny this
fact that the applicants are Principal,
Teacher and Security Staff of the College
having no criminal antecedents and also
could not deny the several facts of
criminal activities about the complainant
in the affidavit. He is also not in a position
to put a case of malafide against the
applicants.

16. I have considered the rival
submissions made by learned counsel for
the parties and perused the record.

17. From the perusal of facts, this is
very much clear that out of three
applicants, two are Teachers and third one
is Security Officer of the College. Apart
from teaching assignment, two applicants
are also having Administrative post as
applicant no. 1 is Chief Proctor, applicant
no. 2 is Principal and all three applicants
are having no criminal antecedents. In fact,
all
of
them
are
performing
their
administrative duties for smooth and
peaceful
functioning
of
College
Administration, which was interrupted by
opposite party no. 2 in the name of
Students
Union Leader.
It
is
very
surprising that learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate has issued summoning order
without considering the facts, without
application of mind and without testing the
incidents of complainant as well as
accused before him i.e. applicants, who are
teaching and administrative staff of a
College. In all eventuality, issuance of
summoning order is not a mere formality,
in fact it initiates criminal proceedings
against a person and compel him to face
criminal trial, therefore, it is required on
the
part
of
learned
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate to consider each and every
facts about the complainant as well as
1 All. Praveen Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
441
accused before issuance of summoning
order and further reasons has to be
recorded. If in such case, which is before
this
Court,
continuance
of
criminal
proceeding is permitted then this would be
hazardous as no teachers of College would
come forward to hold Administrative post
for smooth and peaceful functioning of
Educational Institution.

18. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate
was required to see this aspect of the matter
before issuing summoning order, therefore,
proceedings in Criminal Complaint Case No.
1668 of 2005 ( Ishu Sonkar Vs. Dr.
Satyamvada Singh and others) under sections
323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and summoning order
dated 01.12.2005 are bad in the eye of law and
are hereby quashed.

19. With the aforesaid observations,
present 482 Cr.P.C. application is allowed.

20. No order as to costs.
----------
(2020)1ILR 441

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.11.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE, J.

Application U/S 482 Cr. P.C. No. 9184 of 2002

Praveen Kumar & Anr. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Samit Gopal, Sri G.S. Chaturvedi, Sri
Gopal Chaturvedi, Sri Viresh Mishra, Sri
Amit Misra, Sri Imran Ullah

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A., Sri Govind Saran, Sri Manish
Tiwari, Sri Ankit Saran, Sri Atharva Dixit
A. Criminal Procedure Code, Section 156
(3) - Section 197 of the Cr.P.C - Section
397/401 and Section 482 of the Cr.P.C-
Suo Motu inherent and revisional power
of High Court- Application moved by
opposite party no.2 u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C.
allowed -Magistrate directed the police to
lodge F.I.R. against the applicants, who
are
Government
servants
-Previously
applicant no.1 had passed order under
the Land Revenue Act in continuation
thereof, the applicant no.2 submitted
report on basis of which First Information
Report was got lodged - F.I.R. was
challenged by one of the accused before
the Division Bench of this Court which
took a serious view of the matter and
entrusted investigation of said criminal
case to the CBI -Applicant no.2 appeared
before the trial court as prosecution
witness.

B. (First Issue)- Action of the applicants
on the date of incident was unmistakably
within discharge of their official duty and
was as such so inextricably intertwined
with their official obligations that the two
cannot
be
separated
and
thus
the
provision of section 197 of Cr.P.C. is duly
applicable
in
the
matter
and
the
magistrate could not have taken judicial
notice of the complaint u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C.
unless
the
same
would
have
been
accompanied with the requisite sanction
order- Categories no. 6 and 7 expounded
in Bhajan Lal's case squarely applicable in
present case.

C. (Second Issue)- Maintainability of the
criminal
application-locus
standi
of
proposed accused to challenge order
passed under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.-
full bench case of Father Thomas - Norms
of judicial propriety and decorum and law
of precedent-Not proper for this court
while sitting singly to observe anything
except to act on the supposition as if the
second issue has been answered in
negative.

D. (Third Issue when the second issue
has been answered in the negative)- Suo