# Geetanjali v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 6 ILRA 101
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-02-28
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 4383 of 2020
- **Bench:** Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/geetanjali-v-state-of-u-p-ors-45744
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code (2
of 1974) - Section 203, 204 - Conditions for
issuing process - Dismissal of complaint before
issuing process - Held - Magistrate must apply
his mind to a complaint & see whether
102 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
complaint contain materials making out prima
facie case to proceed - words "sufficient ground
for proceeding" - suggest that ground should be
made out in the complaint for proceeding
against the opposite party/respondent - where
allegations in the complaint or the chargesheet
do not constitute an offence against a person,
the complaint is liable to be dismissed (Para 11)
Applicant husband died due to improper medical
treatment - moved application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. -
same treated as a complaint case - Magistrate
rejected the complaint - Criminal Revision also
dismissed- Held - complaint case, filed after more
than one month and twenty days from the date of
death - in the application filed u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C.
there is no averment that initially the applicant tried
to lodge F.I.R. before filing the application under
Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C- which makes the case
doubtful - in enquiry report submitted by the Police &
report of the medical board it was mentioned that
husband of the applicant had expired due to
septicemia, Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome,
Fever Multi Organ Failure - courts below have not
committed error in rejecting application. (Para 13)

Application dismissed (E-5)

List of case cited :

1.Mahboob & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & anr. (2017) 2 JIC,
320, All LB

2.Smt. Shiv Kumar & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & anr. (2017)
2 JIC, 589, All LB

3.HariramVerma & 4 ors. Vs St. of U.P. & anr. (2017)
99 ALL CC 104

4.Jacob Mathew Vs St. of Punj. & ors. Crl. Appeal No.
144-145/2004, decided on 5th August, 2005

## Text

6 All. Geetanjali Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
101
not prima facie constitute any offence or
make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the
first
information
report
and
other
materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do
not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying
an investigation by police officers under
Section 156(1) of the Code except under an
order of a Magistrate within the purview of
Section
155(2)
of
the
Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted
allegations made in the FIR or complaint
and the evidence collected in support of the
same do not disclose the commission of any
offence and make out a case against the
accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the
FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence
but constitute only a non-cognizable
offence, no investigation is permitted by a
police officer without an order of a
Magistrate as contemplated under Section
155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in
the FIR or complaint are so absurd and
inherently improbable on the basis of which
no prudent person can ever reach a just
conclusion that there is sufficient ground
for proceeding against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express
legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions
of the Code or the concerned Act (under
which a criminal proceeding is instituted)
to the institution and continuance of the
proceedings and/or where there is a
specific provision in the Code or the
concerned
Act,
providing
efficacious
redress for the grievance of the aggrieved
party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding
is manifestly attended with mala fide
and/or where the proceeding is maliciously
instituted with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance on the accused and
with a view to spite him due to private and
personal grudge."

14. From the perusal of allegations made in
the F.I.R. and evidence collected by I.O. during
investigation, it is not a case of grave injustice.
Learned counsel for applicants could not show
any irregularity and illegality to investigation.

15. The allegation levelled against them
can be adjudicated only after the evidence and
truthfulness of allegation cannot be considered in
the proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before
this Court and trial must go on.

16. Considering facts and circumstances of
the case, allegation made in F.I.R., injury report
of victim and legal preposition discussed herein
before, application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
fails and is accordingly dismissed.
----------
(2020)06ILR A101
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.02.2020

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

Application U/S 482 No. 4383 of 2020

Geetanjali ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Shailendra Kumar Yadav, Mahesh
Prasad Yadav

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

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code (2
of 1974) - Section 203, 204 - Conditions for
issuing process - Dismissal of complaint before
issuing process - Held - Magistrate must apply
his mind to a complaint & see whether
102 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
complaint contain materials making out prima
facie case to proceed - words "sufficient ground
for proceeding" - suggest that ground should be
made out in the complaint for proceeding
against the opposite party/respondent - where
allegations in the complaint or the chargesheet
do not constitute an offence against a person,
the complaint is liable to be dismissed (Para 11)
Applicant husband died due to improper medical
treatment - moved application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. -
same treated as a complaint case - Magistrate
rejected the complaint - Criminal Revision also
dismissed- Held - complaint case, filed after more
than one month and twenty days from the date of
death - in the application filed u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C.
there is no averment that initially the applicant tried
to lodge F.I.R. before filing the application under
Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C- which makes the case
doubtful - in enquiry report submitted by the Police &
report of the medical board it was mentioned that
husband of the applicant had expired due to
septicemia, Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome,
Fever Multi Organ Failure - courts below have not
committed error in rejecting application. (Para 13)

Application dismissed (E-5)

List of case cited :

1.Mahboob & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & anr. (2017) 2 JIC,
320, All LB

2.Smt. Shiv Kumar & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & anr. (2017)
2 JIC, 589, All LB

3.HariramVerma & 4 ors. Vs St. of U.P. & anr. (2017)
99 ALL CC 104

4.Jacob Mathew Vs St. of Punj. & ors. Crl. Appeal No.
144-145/2004, decided on 5th August, 2005

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

1. Heard Mr. Shailendra Kumar Yadav
and Mr. Mahesh Prasad Yadav, learned
counsel for the applicant and Mr. Prashant
Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State
assisted by Mr. P.K. Shahi, learned special
counsel for the State.

2. The present application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash
the judgment and order dated 15th March,
2018
passed
by
the
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate, Allahabad in Complaint Case
No. 1521 of 2015 (Geetanjali Vs. Dr. R.P.
Shukla & Others), whereby the complaint
made
by
the
applicant
through
an
application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.
has been rejected. The applicant has also
challenged the judgment and order dated
1st October, 2019 passed by the Additional
Sessions Judge, Court No.21, Allahabad in
Criminal Revision No. 120 of 2018
(Geetanjali Vs. Dr. R.P. Shukla & Others)
whereby the revision filed by the applicant
has been dismissed and the judgment and
order passed by the concerned Magistrate
dated 15th March, 2018 has been affirmed.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant
submits that the case of applicant is that the
husband of applicant, namely, Shyamendra
Kaushal became suddenly ill on 27th July,
2015, the applicant and her father-in-law,
namely, Achhe Lal Yadav got him admitted
in Emergency Ward of Nazreth Hospital for
his medical aid after depositing requisite
charges towards fees of emergency ward,
medicines, doctors etc. Opposite party no.2,
Dr. R.P. Shukla was assigned the work of
medically treating the husband of the
applicant.
After
medically
test
etc.,
opposite party no.2 told the applicant that
presently the condition of her husband is
normal and further asked the applicant to
take him to her home and on the next day
i.e. 28th July, 2015, she would take him to
the OPD of the hospital, where he will
medically examine him again, but seeing
the condition of her husband, the applicant
6 All. Geetanjali Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
103
and other family members requested
opposite party to admit her husband and
provide medical aid for whole night.
Consequently, the husband of the applicant
was admitted by opposite party no.2
namely, Dr.R.P. Shukla and on his advise
medicine was given to her husband and
whole night treatment was continued but
despite consuming medicine as per advise
of the opposite party no.2 (Dr. R.P. Shukla),
the health condition of her husband became
critical, due to which a hot talk was
exchanged between the applicant and the
opposite party no.2. Because of aforesaid
hot talk it appears that opposite party no.2
being the doctor might have provided
noxious
medicine
to
her
husband
deliberately and ultimately on 28th July,
2015 at about 04:00 p.m. her husband died
in Nazreth Hospital, Allahabad. On being
asked the reason by the applicant that at
morning in pathology test report, ailment of
malaria was reported and platelets were
found less than accurate and the applicant
thereafter had been praying for providing
medicine for increasing platelets but all
went in vain and after some time husband
of the applicant died due to negligence and
improper treatment of the opposite party
no.2, therefore, for punishing him, the
applicant has moved an application under
Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. on 17th September,
2015, but the same has been treated as a
complaint case i.e. the present complaint
case. With a view to prove prima facie
negligence on the part of the opposite party
no.2 and the management of Nazreth
Hospital, the applicant got her statement
recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. The
applicant has also got examined Achhe Lal
Yadav as P.W.-1 and another witness,
namely, Amar Nath Yadav. The concerned
Magistrate has proceeded further. However,
without considering the contents of the
application and statements of the witnesses,
the concerned Magistrate has illegally
rejected the complaint of the applicant filed
under Section 156 (3) Cr.PC. The grounds
mentioned in rejecting the complaint of the
applicant are that on 12th October, 2015,
the Chief Medical Officer, Allahabad was
directed to constitute a medical board,
which would conduct an enquiry with
reference to the averments made in the
complaint and submit report before the
court of concerned Magistrate. It is further
submitted that the report of the medical
board appears to have submitted its report
and about the cause of death the opinion of
the medical board is mentioned in the
impugned order. With reference to the
report of the medical board, it is submitted
by the learned counsel for the applicant that
no notice was ever given to the applicant
by the medical board, so that the applicant
could have factual scenario and negligence
of the opposite party no.2. Learned counsel
for the applicant further submits that in the
judgment and order, there is no recital that
the medical board has made an inquiry
about the skill of opposite party no.2 as to
whether he was competent person to
exercise ordinary skill particularly with
regard to ailment of applicant's husband.

4. It is lastly submitted that at the
stage of issuing process, the concerned
Magistrate is only required to be prima
facie satisfied on the basis of allegations
made in the complaint and entering into a
detailed discussion of merits and demerits
at this state is not permissible as held by the
Apex Court in its various judgments. Both
the courts below have committed manifest
error in law and facts in dismissing the
complaint case as framed and filed by the
applicant.

5. On the commutative strength of the
aforesaid, learned counsel for the applicant
104 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
urges that the both the impugned orders are
liable to be quashed and the concerned
Magistrate be directed to revisit the
complaint filed by the applicant.

6. Per contra, Mr. Prashant Kumar,
learned A.G.A. for the State submits that if
the application under section 156 (3)
Cr.P.C.
contains
the
allegations
of
commission of a cognizable offence, then
the Magistrate is under obligation to direct
investigation after registration of the FIR in
each and every case. It is then submitted
that the present complaint case made by the
applicant, namely, Geetanjali through an
application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. is
nothing but a bundle of lie and the same
has been made only for exploiting the
opposite party nos. 2 and 3 by indulging
their names in a fake, false and frivolous
case. The entire prosecution story as
unfolded in the present complaint case is
absolutely a self-made story projected by
the applicant. The application made by the
applicant under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.,
which has been treated to be complaint
case, has been filed after more than one
month and twenty days from the date of
death of the husband of the applicant.
Neither in the affidavit filed in support of
the
present
application
nor
in
the
application filed under Section 156 (3)
Cr.P.C. by the applicant, there is any
averment that initially the applicant has
tried to lodge first information report
before filing the application under Section
156
(3)
Cr.P.C.,
which
makes
the
prosecution case doubtful. Apart from the
above, learned A.G.A. further submits that
the court below has not found any
substance in the prosecution case and he
has rightly rejected the application of the
applicant, which has been treated as
complaint case, on the basis of enquiry
report submitted by the Police and the
report of the medical board submitted by
the Chief Medical Officer, wherein it has
been mentioned that due to septicemia,
ARDS
(Acute
Respiratory
Distress
Syndrome), Fever Multi Organ Failure,
husband of the applicant had expired. The
court below has not committed any error
while passing the impugned order. The
court below has recorded pure finding of
fact after relying upon the judgment of the
Apex Court in the case of Jacob Mathew
Vs. State of Punjab & Others (Criminal
Appeal No. 144-145/2004, decided on 5th
August, 2005). The appellate court has also
rightly rejected the appeal filed by the
applicant and affirmed the order of the
concerned
Magistrate.
He,
therefore,
submits that the impugned orders passed by
the courts below are legal and just and the
same do not warrant any interference by
this Court.

7. I have considered the submissions
made by the learned counsel for the parties
and have gone through the record of the
present application under Section 482
Cr.P.C.

8. In Mahboob and others vs. State
of U.P. and another, reported in 2017 (2)
JIC, 320, (All) (LB), specifically in
paragraph Nos. 10, 11 and 12, this Court
has observed as follows:-

"(10) Hon'ble Apex Court has
further dealt with the nature of inquiry
which is required to be conducted by the
Magistrate and referring the case of Vijay
Dhanuka (supra) it was held as under:

"14. In view of our answer to the
aforesaid question, the next question which
falls for our determination is whether the
learned Magistrate before issuing summons
has held the inquiry as mandated under
Section 202 of the Code. The word "inquiry
6 All. Geetanjali Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
105
" has been defined under Section 2(g) of the
Code, the same reads as follows:

"2. (g) ''inquiry' means every
inquiry, other than a trial, conducted under
this Code by a Magistrate or court,"

It is evident from the aforesaid
provision, every inquiry other than a trial
conducted by the Magistrate or the court is
an inquiry. No specific mode or manner of
inquiry is provided under Section 202 of the
Code. In the inquiry envisaged under
Section 202 of the Code, the witnesses are
examined whereas under Section 200 of the
Code, examination of the complainant only
is necessary with the option of examining
the witnesses present, if any. This exercise
by the Magistrate, for purpose of deciding
whether or not there is sufficient ground for
proceeding against the accused, is nothing
but an inquiry envisaged under Section 202
of the Code."

(11) In the present case, the
learned Magistrate has not conducted any
inquiry so as to satisfy himself that the
allegations in the complaint constitute an
offence and when considered alongwith the
statements recorded and the result of such
inquiry. There is ground for proceedings
against the petitioners under Section 204
CrPC. There is nothing on record to show
that the learned Magistrate has applied his
mind to arrive at a prima facie conclusion.
It must be recalled that summoning of
accused to appear the criminal court is a
serious matter affecting the dignity selfrespect and image in the society. A process
of criminal court cannot be made a weapon
of harassment.

(12) Learned Magistrate has
passed a very cryptic order simply by
saying that the statement of complainant as
well as witnesses recorded under Sections
200 and 202 CrPC are perused and
accused are summoned such order per se
itself illegal which could not stand the test
of law."

9. Reliance is also placed upon the
judgement of 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). Paragraph No. 10 of the aforesaid
judgement is relevant for the controversy in
hand. The same is 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. Reference may also be made to
the judgement of this Court in the case of
Hariram Verma and 4 Others Vs. State
of U.P. and Anohter, reported in 2017 (99)
ALL CC 104, wherein the following
observations have been made in paragraphs
7 to 16:

"7. A perusal of this impugned
summoning order indicates that learned
Magistrate had noted in the impugned
order the contents of complaint and
evidences u/s 200 and 202 CrPC but
had neither any discussion of evidence
was made, nor was it considered as to
what overt act had allegedly been
committed by accused. This contention
of learned counsel for the applicants
cannot be ruled out that leaned counsel
have noted the contents of complaint
and statements without considering its
106 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
probability or prima facie case, and
whether he had actually considered
statements u/ss 200, 202 CrPC or the
documents of the original. At stage of
summoning,
the
Magistrate
is
not
required to meticulously examine or
evaluate the evidence. He
is not
required to record detailed reasons. A
brief order which indicate the application
of mind is all that is expected of him at the
stage.

8. But in impugned order there is
nothing which may indicate that learned
Magistrate had even considered facts of the
case in hand before passing the summoning
order. Impugned order clearly lacks the
reflection
of
application
of
judicial
discretion or mind. Nothing is there which
may show that learned Magistrate, before
passing of the order under challenge had
considered facts of the case and evidence
or law. Therefore it appears that, in fact, no
judicial mind was applied before the
passing of impugned order of summoning.
Such order cannot be accepted as a proper
legal judicial order passed after following
due procedure of law.

9. In ruling "M/s. Pepsi Food
Ltd. & another vs. Special Judicial
Magistrate & others, 1998 UPCrR 118"
Hon'ble Supreme Court held :-

"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 the accused. Magistrate
had to carefully scrutinize 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."

10. In "Paul George vs. State,
2002 Cri.L.J. 996" Hon'ble Supreme Court
held :-

"We feel that whatever be the
outcome of the pleas raised by the
appellant on merit, the order disposing of
the matter must indicate application of
mind to the case and some reasons be
assigned for negating or accepting such
pleas.- - - - - It is true that it may depend
upon the nature of the matter which is
being dealt with by the Court and the
nature of the jurisdiction being exercised as
to in what manner the reasons may be
recorded e.g. in an order of affirmance
detailed reasons or discussion may not be
necessary but some brief indication by the
application of mind may be traceable to
affirm an order would certainly be
required. Mere ritual of repeating the
words or language used in the provisions,
saying that no illegality, impropriety or
jurisdictional error is found in the
judgment under challenge without even a
whisper of the merits of the matter or
nature of pleas raised does not meet the
requirement
of
decision
of
a
case
judicially."

11. In S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals
Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla, (2005) 8 SCC 89 the
Apex Court had held :
6 All. Geetanjali Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
107

"Section
203
of
the
Code
empowers a Magistrate to dismiss a
complaint without even issuing a process. It
uses the words "after considering" and "the
Magistrate is of opinion that there is no
sufficient ground for proceeding". These
words suggest that the Magistrate has to
apply his mind to a complaint at the initial
stage itself and see whether a case is made
out against the accused persons before
issuing process to them on the basis of the
complaint. For applying his mind and
forming an opinion as to whether there is
sufficient
ground
for
proceeding,
a
complaint must make out a prima facie
case to proceed. This, in other words,
means that a complaint must contain
material to enable the Magistrate to make
up his mind for issuing process. If this were
not the requirement, consequences could be
far-reaching. If a Magistrate had to issue
process in every case, the burden of work
before the Magistrate as well as the
harassment caused to the respondents to
whom
process
is
issued
would
be
tremendous. Even Section 204 of the Code
starts with the words "if in the opinion of
the Magistrate taking cognizance of an
offence there is sufficient ground for
proceeding". The words "sufficient ground
for proceeding" again suggest that ground
should be made out in the complaint for
proceeding against the respondent. It is
settled law that at the time of issuing of the
process the Magistrate is required to see
only the allegations in the complaint and
where allegations in the complaint or the
charge-sheet do not constitute an offence
against a person, the complaint is liable to
be dismissed."

12. It is settled principle that
while summoning an accused, the court has to
see prima facie evidence. The ''prima facie
evidence' means the evidence sufficient for
summoning the accused and not the evidence
sufficient to warrant conviction. The enquiry u/s
202 CrPC is limited only to ascertain of truth or
falsehood of allegations made in the complaint
and whether on the material placed by the
complainant a prima facie case was made out
for summoning the accused or not.

13. As held by the Courts as above,
the passing of order of summoning any person
as accused is a very important matter, which
initiates criminal proceeding against him. Such
orders cannot be passed summarily or without
applying judicial mind.

14. In light of this legal position I
have gone through the impugned order. A
perusal of this order indicates that neither any
discussion of evidence was made by learned,
nor was it considered as to which accused had
allegedly committed what overt act. The five
accused persons of complaint were summoned
for offences mentioned in it. Impugned order
clearly lacks the reflection of application of
judicial discretion or mind. Nothing is there
which may show that learned Magistrate,
before passing of the order under challenge had
considered the facts and circumstances of the
case and the evidence or the law. Therefore it
appears that, in fact, no judicial mind was
applied before the passing of impugned order of
summoning. Such order cannot be accepted as
a proper legal judicial order passed after
following due procedure of law. Therefore it is
liable to be quashed.

15. In Anita Malhotra v. Apparel
Export Promotion Council, (2012) 1 SCC
520 the Apex Court had hld as under:

"20. As rightly stated so, though
it is not proper for the High Court to
consider the defence of the accused or
conduct a roving enquiry in respect of
merits of the accusation, but if on the face
of the document which is beyond suspicion
or doubt, placed by the accused and if it is
considered that the accusation against her
cannot stand, in such a matter, in order to
prevent injustice or abuse of process, it is
108 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
incumbent on the High Court to look into
those document/documents which have a
bearing on the matter even at the initial
stage and grant relief to the person
concerned by exercising jurisdiction u/s
482 of the Code."

16.
Considering
the
uncontroverted averment of present petition
u/s 482 CrPC as well as affidavit
supporting
it,
the
incorrect
and
unbelievable complaint case, and false
implication of five petitioners and the
general allegations levelled by informant in
her FIR without allegations of any specific
act, the incorrectness of cause of action for
the
complaint
and
considering
the
vagueness of information mentioned in
complaint, and in light of verdict mentioned
in aforesaid rulings of Hon'ble Apex Court,
this appears to be a case in which
applicants
should
succeed
and
the
impugned summoning order as well as the
complaint case are liable to be quashed.

11. From the perusal of the aforesaid
laws laid down by the Apex Court, this
Court is of the firm opinion that Section
203 of the Code empowers a Magistrate to
dismiss a complaint without even issuing a
process.
It
uses
the
words
"after
considering" and "the Magistrate is of
opinion that there is no sufficient ground
for proceeding". These words suggest that
the Magistrate has to apply his mind to a
complaint at the initial stage itself and see
whether a case is made out against the
accused persons before issuing process to
them on the basis of the complaint. For
applying his mind and forming an opinion
as to whether there is sufficient ground for
proceeding, a complaint must make out a
prima facie case to proceed. This, in other
words, means that a complaint must contain
material to enable the Magistrate to make
up his mind for issuing process. If these
were not the requirement, consequences
could be far-reaching. If a Magistrate had
to issue process in every case, the burden of
work before the Magistrate as well as the
harassment caused to the respondents to
whom
process
is
issued
would
be
tremendous. Even Section 204 of the Code
starts with the words "if in the opinion of
the Magistrate taking cognizance of an
offence there is sufficient ground for
proceeding". The words "sufficient ground
for proceeding" again suggest that ground
should be made out in the complaint for
proceeding
against
the
opposite
party/respondent. It is settled law that at the
time of issuing of the process the
Magistrate is required to see only the
allegations in the complaint and where
allegations in the complaint or the chargesheet do not constitute an offence against a
person, the complaint is liable to be
dismissed.

12. From the aforesaid, this court
finds substance in the submissions made by
the learned A.G.A. for the State that entire
prosecution story as unfolded in the present
complaint case is absolutely a self-made
story projected by the applicant. The
application made by the applicant under
Section 156 (3), which has been treated to
be complaint case, has been filed after
more than one month and twenty days from
the date of death of the husband of the
applicant. Neither in the affidavit filed in
support of the present application nor in the
application filed under Section 156 (3)
Cr.P.C. by the applicant, there is any
averment that initially the applicant has
tried to lodge first information report
before filing the application under Section
156 (3) Cr.P.C.

13. In light of the above facts and
above proposition of law, this Court is of
6 All. Rajeev Gupta Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
109
the view that the court below has not found
any substance in the prosecution case and
he has rightly rejected the application of the
applicant, which has been treated as
complaint case, on the basis of enquiry
report submitted by the Police and the
report of the medical board submitted by
the Chief Medical Officer, wherein it has
been mentioned that due to septicemia,
ARDS
(Acute
Respiratory
Distress
Syndrome), Fever Multi Organ Failure,
husband of the applicant had expired. The
appellate court has also rightly rejected the
appeal filed by the applicant and affirmed
the order of the concerned Magistrate. Both
the courts below have not committed any
error while passing the impugned orders.
The court below have recorded pure
finding of fact after relying upon the
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
Jacob Mathew Vs. State of Punjab &
Others
(Criminal
Appeal
No.
144145/2004, decided on 5th August, 2005).
Thus, the complaint of the applicant has
rightly been rejected by the court below
under the order impugned.

14. In light of above facts, this Court
is of the view that both the orders
impugned do not warrant any interference
by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The
present
application
lacks
merit
and
deserves to be dismissed. It is accordingly
dismissed.
----------
(2020)06ILR A109
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.02.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAJENDRA KUMAR-IV, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 5289 of 2020

Rajeev Gupta ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Anmol Tiwari, Sri S.K. Tiwari

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

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code (2
of 1974)- Section 204- Section 482 -
Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) , Section
376D- Section 506 - Issuance of process - At
the
time
of
passing
summoning
order,
Magistrate is only required to see prima facie
evidence and sufficient ground for proceeding -
allegation levelled against accused can be
adjudicated
only after
the evidence and
truthfulness of allegation cannot be considered
in the proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
before High Court.

Informant supported prosecution case in her
statement stated that accused applicant along
with other co-accused committed rape with her
- Smt. Shakuntala (mother) and Ishwari Devi
u/s 202 supported the case that accused Rajeev
and Prashant took victim with them by Car on
the pretext that her brother was seriously ill &
that victim told them on returning that accused
applicant and other co - accused committed
rape with her - prima facie case against
accused-applicant
made
out-
Application
dismissed (Para 4, 17)

Application dismissed. (E-5)

List of case cited :

1.St. of Haryana & ors. Vs Ch. Bhajan Lal & ors.
(1992) Supp 1 SCC 335

2.Iridium India Telecom Ltd. Vs Motorola
Incorporated & ors. (2011) 1 SCC 74

3.PriyaVrat Singh & ors. Vs Shyam Ji Sahai
(2008)
8
SCC
232