# Krishna Mohan Singh & Ors. Revisionists v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2024) 12 ILRA 455
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-12-13
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 3420 of 2022
- **Bench:** Vipin Chandra Dixit
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/krishna-mohan-singh-ors-revisionists-v-state-of-u-p-anr-51220
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Law
-
Criminal
Procedure
Code,1973
-
Sections
397/401

-
Revision under Cr.P.C.-Summoning order
challenged- Requirement of judicial
satisfaction
-
Proforma
summoning
order passed without recording reasons
or discussing evidence - Violation of
proviso
to
Section
202
Cr.P.C.
-
Reiterated,
Magistrate
must
apply
judicial
mind,
record
prima
facie
satisfaction and refer to materials relied
upon - Summoning order liable to be
set aside-revision application allowed.
(Paras 10, 11, and 14)

HELD:
It is admitted fact that there was dispute in
respect of ancestral property in between
opposite party no.2/complainant and his brother
Kripa Shanker Singh and several litigations
between them are going on. Revisionists Nos.1,
3 and 4 are witnesses of charge-sheet filed
against opposite party no.2/complainant and his
son. It appears that the present complaint has
been filed only to create pressure upon the
revisionists. As per injury report, there was no
gun shot injury to the complainant and all the
injuries reflect only pain in different parts of
body. No external injury was found by the
doctor who prepared the injury report. Doctor
was not produced in evidence. The learned
Magistrate without recording any prima facie
satisfaction regarding truthness of incident, has
summoned the revisionists. No evidence of
complainant and his witnesses were discussed in
the impugned order. (Para 10)

From the bare perusal of summoning order, it is
apparent that it is a proforma order without
application of judicial mind. The law has been
settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this
Hon'ble Court in series of cases that before
passing the summoning order in a complaint
case, the Magistrate must record his satisfaction
that there is sufficient ground for proceeding.
The Magistrate is required to apply his judicial
mind as to whether there is sufficient ground for
proceeding in the case or not and formation of
such opinion is required to be St.d in the order
itself. In the present case it is apparent that no
reason
has
been
assigned
and
without
discussing any evidence adduced by the
complainant and his witnesses, the summoning
order has been passed
by the learned
Magistrate. (Para 11)

In the present case, the learned Magistrate
without discussing any evidence adduced by the
complainant and his witnesses and without
recording any prima facie satisfaction has
summoned the revisionists. The order impugned
has been passed without application of judicial
456 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
mind and it appears that it is a proforma order.
(Para 14)

Revision application allowed. (E-14)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

12 All. Krishna Mohan Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
455
the Director JTRI to sensitise the judicial
officers during regular training sessions to
observe judicial discipline and maintain
judicial propriety in following directions
issued by the Supreme Court in the
Rajnesh case (supra) and directions issued
by this court in Smt. Parul Tyagi case
(supra), and Rajesh Babu Saxena case
(supra) in letter and spirit. A checklist of
essential points, including a clear outline of
do's, should be prepared and circulated
among the learned family court judges
from time to time accordingly.

12. With the aforesaid observations,
the instant revision is disposed of.
----------
(2024) 12 ILRA 455
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.12.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIPIN CHANDRA DIXIT, J.

Criminal Revision No. 3420 of 2022

Krishna Mohan Singh & Ors.
 ...Revisionists
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionists:
Vijendra Kumar Mishra

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., A.B.N. Tripathi, Arvind Yadav, Gulab
Shankar Singh

Criminal
Law
-
Criminal
Procedure
Code,1973
-
Sections
397/401

-
Revision under Cr.P.C.-Summoning order
challenged- Requirement of judicial
satisfaction
-
Proforma
summoning
order passed without recording reasons
or discussing evidence - Violation of
proviso
to
Section
202
Cr.P.C.
-
Reiterated,
Magistrate
must
apply
judicial
mind,
record
prima
facie
satisfaction and refer to materials relied
upon - Summoning order liable to be
set aside-revision application allowed.
(Paras 10, 11, and 14)

HELD:
It is admitted fact that there was dispute in
respect of ancestral property in between
opposite party no.2/complainant and his brother
Kripa Shanker Singh and several litigations
between them are going on. Revisionists Nos.1,
3 and 4 are witnesses of charge-sheet filed
against opposite party no.2/complainant and his
son. It appears that the present complaint has
been filed only to create pressure upon the
revisionists. As per injury report, there was no
gun shot injury to the complainant and all the
injuries reflect only pain in different parts of
body. No external injury was found by the
doctor who prepared the injury report. Doctor
was not produced in evidence. The learned
Magistrate without recording any prima facie
satisfaction regarding truthness of incident, has
summoned the revisionists. No evidence of
complainant and his witnesses were discussed in
the impugned order. (Para 10)

From the bare perusal of summoning order, it is
apparent that it is a proforma order without
application of judicial mind. The law has been
settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this
Hon'ble Court in series of cases that before
passing the summoning order in a complaint
case, the Magistrate must record his satisfaction
that there is sufficient ground for proceeding.
The Magistrate is required to apply his judicial
mind as to whether there is sufficient ground for
proceeding in the case or not and formation of
such opinion is required to be St.d in the order
itself. In the present case it is apparent that no
reason
has
been
assigned
and
without
discussing any evidence adduced by the
complainant and his witnesses, the summoning
order has been passed
by the learned
Magistrate. (Para 11)

In the present case, the learned Magistrate
without discussing any evidence adduced by the
complainant and his witnesses and without
recording any prima facie satisfaction has
summoned the revisionists. The order impugned
has been passed without application of judicial
456 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
mind and it appears that it is a proforma order.
(Para 14)

Revision application allowed. (E-14)

List of Cases cited:

1. Lalankumar Singh & ors.Vs St. of Mah.
reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1383

2. Sachin Garg Vs St. of U.P. & anr. reported in
2024 SCC OnLine SC 82

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vipin Chandra
Dixit, J.)

1. This criminal revision under Section
397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of
revisionists against the summoning order
dated
7.6.2022
passed
by
Judicial
Magistrate-IIIrd, Gorakhpur in Complaint
Case No.147428 of 2021 (Gulab Shankar
Singh vs. Krishna Mohan Singh & others),
by which revisionists were summoned
under Sections 307 & 392 IPC.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the
father of opposite party No.2 had executed a
will deed on 9.12.2014 in favour of opposite
party no.2. The brother of opposite party
no.2 namely Kripa Shanker Singh had filed a
suit for cancellation of will deed which was
registered as Case No.1464 of 2016. The
application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC
filed for interim injunction was rejected by
the learned trial court vide order dated
17.1.2018. The brother of opposite party
No.2 had challenged the order dated
17.1.2018 by filing Misc. Appeal No. 14 of
2018 and the lower appellate court vide order
dated 26.2.2019 was pleased to set aside the
order dated 17.1.2018 and directed the parties
to maintain status quo in respect of suit
property.

3. It is further noted that there was
dispute regarding ancestral property in
between opposite party no.2 and his brother
Kripa Shanker Singh and several litigations
are going on. Kripa Shanker Singh had
lodged an FIR against opposite party No.2
and his son Udai Shanker Singh @ Udai
Bhan Singh in Police Station Campierganj,
District Gorakhpur which was registered as
Case Crime No. 342 of 2015 under
Sections 380, 427, 504, 506, 120B IPC.
The
Investigating
Officer
after
due
investigation has submitted charge sheet
against opposite party No.2 and his son.
The revisionist Nos. 1, 3 and 4 are
witnesses of prosecution in the chargesheet
submitted by the Investigating
Officer. The revisionist no.2 is aged about
80 years and was working at the
agricultural land of revisionist no.1.

4. The opposite party No.2 had moved
an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
on 28.9.2021 against revisionists and it was
registered as a Complaint Case No. 147428
of
2021.
The
statement
of
complainant/opposite
party
no.2
was
recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. on
24.2.2022 and the statement of P.W.-1 Udai
Shanker Singh was recorded under Section
202 Cr.P.C. on 15.3.2022. Statement of P.W.-
2 Akhand Pratap Singh @ Mohan was
recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. on
6.4.2022.
The
learned
Magistrate
had
summoned revisionists under Section 307,
392 IPC vide order dated 7.6.2022 which is
impugned in the present criminal revision.

5. Heard Sri V.K. Mishra, learned
counsel for revisionists, learned AGA for
the State of U.P./opposite party no.1 and
Sri Arvind Yadav, learned counsel for
opposite party No.2, and perused the
record.

6. It is submitted by learned counsel
for
revisionists
that
revisionists
are
12 All. Krishna Mohan Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
457
innocent persons and have been falsely
implicated in this case. There was serious
dispute between opposite party no.2 and
his brother namely, Kripa Shanker Singh
with regard to ancestral property and
several litigations are going on between
them. The revisionists are witnesses of
charge-sheet submitted in pursuance of FIR
registered as Case Crime No. 342 of 2015
lodged against opposite party No.2 and his
son. The present complaint has been filed
by the complainant against revisionists on
wrong allegations only to create pressure
upon the revisionists, as the revisionists are
prosecution witnesses in criminal case filed
against opposite party no.2. It is further
submitted that the suit filed by brother of
opposite party no.2 for cancellation of will
deed is still pending for consideration. In
Misc. Appeal filed by brother of opposite
party no.2 there was an order of status quo
in respect of suit property. Kripa Shaker
Singh, brother of opposite party no.2 is in
possession over the said property.

7. It is further submitted that two
witnesses
were
produced
by
the
complainant in support of his case but there
are
serious
contradictions
in
their
statements and they have failed to prove the
prosecution case. Even doctor was not
produced
in
evidence.
The
learned
Magistrate
without
considering
the
evidence adduced by the complainant and
without
recording
any
prima
facie
satisfaction, has passed the impugned
summoning order and summoned the
revisionists under Section 307, 392 IPC.
The complainant had not received any
external injury. From perusal of injury
report dated 4.9.2021, it is apparent that
there was no gunshot injury or any external
injury received by the opposite party no.2
and there was only complain of pain.
Lastly, it is submitted that the learned trial
court has failed to comply the proviso of
Section 202 Cr.P.C. and without recording
statement
of
all
the
witnesses
has
summoned the revisionists. Law has been
settled by Hon'ble Apex Court as well as
by this Hon'ble Court that the Magistrate
must record his satisfaction as well as
reason before summoning the accused
persons in a complaint case but in the
present case, no satisfaction has been
recorded and even evidence of witnesses
have not been discussed. The impugned
order suffers from many irregularities and
is liable to be set aside by this Hon'ble
Court.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of opposite party No.2
submits that the learned Magistrate after
considering the statement of complainant
and his witnesses has summoned the
revisionists. The order passed by the
learned Magistrate is in accordance with
law and no interference is warranted. The
learned Magistrate after considering the
evidence and materials which are available
on record has found the involvement of
revisionist in the crime and after prima
facie satisfaction had summoned the
revisionists and there is no illegality in any
manner. No ground for interference is
made out and criminal revision is devoid of
merits and is liable to be dismissed.

9. Considered the submissions of
learned counsel for the parties and perused
the record.

10. It is admitted fact that there was
dispute in respect of ancestral property in
between opposite party no.2/complainant
and his brother Kripa Shanker Singh and
several litigations between them are going
on. Revisionists Nos.1, 3 and 4 are
witnesses of charge-sheet filed against
458 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
opposite party no.2/complainant and his
son. It appears that the present complaint
has been filed only to create pressure upon
the revisionists. As per injury report, there
was no gunshot injury to the complainant
and all the injuries reflect only pain in
different parts of body. No external injury
was found by the doctor who prepared the
injury report. Doctor was not produced in
evidence. The learned Magistrate without
recording any prima facie satisfaction
regarding
truthness
of
incident,
has
summoned the revisionists. No evidence of
complainant
and
his
witnesses
were
discussed in the impugned order.

11.
From
the
bare
perusal
of
summoning order, it is apparent that it is a
proforma order without application of
judicial mind. The law has been settled by
the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this
Hon'ble Court in series of cases that before
passing
the
summoning
order
in
a
complaint case, the Magistrate must record
his satisfaction that there is sufficient
ground for proceeding. The Magistrate is
required to apply his judicial mind as to
whether there is sufficient ground for
proceeding in the case or not and formation
of such opinion is required to be stated in
the order itself. In the present case it is
apparent that no reason has been assigned
and without discussing any evidence
adduced by the complainant and his
witnesses, the summoning order has been
passed by the learned Magistrate.

12. Honble Apex Court in the case of
Lalankumar Singh & others vs. State of
Maharashtra reported in 2022 SCC
OnLine SC 1383 has held that the order
must contain reason and prima facie
satisfaction of the Magistrate concerned.
Relevant paragraph 38, 39 and 40 are
reproduced hereunder:-

"38. The order of issuance of
process is not an empty formality. The
Magistrate is required to apply his mind as
to whether sufficient ground for proceeding
exists in the case or not. The formation of
such an opinion is required to be stated in
the order itself. The order is liable to be set
aside if no reasons are given therein while
coming to the conclusion that there is a
prima facie case against the accused. No
doubt, that the order need not contain
detailed reasons. A reference in this respect
could be made to the judgment of this
Court in the case of Sunil Bharti Mittal vs.
Central Bureau of Investigation, which
reads thus:

"51. On the other hand, Section
204 of the Code deals with the issue of
process, if in the opinion of the Magistrate
taking cognizance of an offence, there is
sufficient ground for proceeding. This
section relates to commencement of a
criminal proceeding. If the Magistrate
taking cognizance of a case (it may be the
Magistrate receiving the complaint or to
whom it has been transferred under Section
192), upon a consideration of the materials
before him (i.e. the complaint, examination
of the complainant and his witnesses, if
present, or report of inquiry, if any), thinks
that there is a prima facie case for
proceeding in respect of an offence, he
shall issue process against the accused.

52. A wide discretion has been
given as to grant or refusal of process and
it must be judicially exercised. A person
ought not to be dragged into court merely
because a complaint has been filed. If a
prima facie case has been made out, the
Magistrate ought to issue process and it
cannot be refused merely because he thinks
that it is unlikely to result in a conviction.

53.
However,
the
words
"sufficient
ground
for
proceeding"
appearing in Section 204 are of immense
12 All. Krishna Mohan Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
459
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.
The order is liable to be set aside if no
reason is given therein while coming to the
conclusion that there is prima facie case
against the accused, though the order need
not contain detailed reasons. A fortiori, the
order would be bad in law if the reason
given turns out to be ex facie incorrect."

39. A similar view has been taken
by this Court in the case of Ashoke Mal
Bafna (supra).

40. In the present case, leaving
aside there being no reasons in support of
the order of the issuance of process, as a
matter of fact, it is clear from the order of
the learned Single Judge of the High Court,
that there was no such order passed at all.
The learned Single Judge of the High
Court, based on the record, has presumed
that there was an order of issuance of
process. We find that such an approach is
unsustainable in law. The appeal therefore
deserves to be allowed."

13. Similar view has been taken by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sachin
Garg vs. State of U.P. & another reported
in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 82. Relevant
paragraph 20 is reproduced hereunder:-

"20. While it is true that at the
stage of issuing summons a magistrate
only needs to be satisfied with a prima
facie case for taking cognizance, the duty
of the magistrate is also to be satisfied
whether there is sufficient ground for
proceeding, as has been held in the case
of Jagdish Ram (supra). The same
proposition of law has been laid down in
the case of Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Anr. -vs-
Special Judicial Magistrate and Ors.
[(1998) 5 SCC 749]. The learned
Magistrate's
order
issuing
summons
records the background of the case in
rather longish detail but reflects his
satisfaction in a cryptic manner. At the
stage of issue of summons, detailed
reasoning as to why a Magistrate is
issuing
summons,
however,
is
not
necessary. But in this case, we are
satisfied that the allegations made by the
complainant do not give rise to the
offences for which the appellant has been
summoned
for
trial.
A
commercial
dispute, which ought to have been
resolved through the forum of Civil Court
has been given criminal colour by lifting
from the penal code certain words or
phrases and implanting them in a
criminal
complaint.
The
learned
Magistrate here failed to apply his mind
in issuing summons and the High Court
also failed to exercise its jurisdiction
under Section 482 of the 1973 Code to
prevent abuse of the power of the
Criminal Court."

14. In the present case, the learned
Magistrate
without
discussing
any
evidence adduced by the complainant and
his witnesses and without recording any
prima facie satisfaction has summoned
the revisionists. The order impugned has
been
passed
without
application
of
judicial mind and it appears that it is a
proforma order.

15. In view of above discussion, the
impugned order dated 7.6.2022 is liable to
be set aside.

16. The criminal revision is allowed.
The impugned order dated 7.6.2022 passed
by the Judicial Magistrate-IIIrd, Gorakhpur
is set aside. The matter is remanded back
460 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
to the concerned court to pass reasoned
order after considering the evidence of
complainant, his witnesses, injury report
and other relevant documents which are
available on record.
----------
(2024) 12 ILRA 460
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.12.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN
MISHRA, J.

Criminal Revision No. 4107 of 2023

Julius Masih @ Sintu Masih @ Ajay
 ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Araf Khan

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

A. Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure
Code,1973- Section 397-Indian Penal
Code,1860-Sections
363
&
366Kidnapping and POCSO Act-section 8Framing of charges-Prima facie caseVictim's
age
disputed
based
on
contradictory documents(school record
Vs birth certificate)-Victim's consent and
volition emphasized in statements-No
evidence of inducement or force by the
accused-Held, prima facie case u/s 363
IPC made out based on strong suspicion
but no case u/s 366 IPC and 8 of POCSO
Act due to the victim's voluntary conduct
and
absence
of
evidence
showing
coerciionn or sexual intent-Trial court to
reconsider discharge application afresh.
(Para 1 to 20)

The revision is partly allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:
1. S. Varadrajan Vs St. of Mad. (1965) AIR SC 942

2. Arjun Kr. Vs St. of UP. & ors Misc. bench
No. 25403 of 2018

3. Alamelu & Anr. St. Rep. by Ins. of Police
(2011) 2 SCC 385

4. Sonu Paswan Vs St. of U.P. & anr.(2013)
31 LCD 1107

5. St. of Haryana Vs Raja Ram (1973) AIR SC
819

6. UOI Vs Prafulla Kr. Samal & anr. (1979) 3
SCC 4

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ram Manohar
Narayan Mishra, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
revisionist,
learned
counsel
for
the
respondent No.2, learned AGA for the
State and perused the material placed on
record.

2.
Pleadings
have
already
been
exchanged between the parties.

2. Instant criminal revision has been
preferred against the order dated 19.7.2023,
passed by the Special Judge (POCSO Act),
Hamirpur, in Special Sessions Trial No.397
of 2020, arising out of Case Crime No.241
of 2020, under sections 363, 366 IPC and
Section 8 of POCSO Act, Police Station
Maudaha, District Hamirpur (State of UP
vs. Julius Masih @ Sintu Masih @ Ajay).
By the impugned order learned Special
Judge has disposed of application 25-Kha
with finding that a prima facie case is made
out against the accused Julius Masih @
Sintu Masih @ Ajay to put him on trial for
charge under sections 363, 366 IPC and
Section 8 of POCSO Act. The learned court
below has also observed that on perusal of
academic documents produced on behalf of