# Manish Kumar Yadav & Anr v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2020) 7 ILRA 341
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-05-14
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 1262 of 2020
- **Bench:** Rahul Chaturvedi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/manish-kumar-yadav-anr-v-state-of-u-p-anr-45892
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 - Sections 202, 482 - Challenge to
summoning order - Magistrate relied upon
doctor's statement and injury report - No mechanism
at the stage of summoning to check veracity of injury
report / documentary evidence - Facts corroborated
prosecution story - Detailed reason not required at
the stage of summoning - Held - Magistrate has
enquired into and passed sufficiently reasonable
summoning order.

Application dismissed. (E-2)

List of cases cited:-

## Text

7 All. Manish Kumar Yadav & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
341
(2020)07ILR A341
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.05.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAHUL CHATURVEDI, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 1262 of 2020

Manish Kumar Yadav & Anr. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Amit Dagga, Sri Anshul Kumar Singhal

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

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 - Sections 202, 482 - Challenge to
summoning order - Magistrate relied upon
doctor's statement and injury report - No mechanism
at the stage of summoning to check veracity of injury
report / documentary evidence - Facts corroborated
prosecution story - Detailed reason not required at
the stage of summoning - Held - Magistrate has
enquired into and passed sufficiently reasonable
summoning order.

Application dismissed. (E-2)

List of cases cited:-

1. National Bank of Oman Vs Barakara Abdul Ajiz &
ors. (2013) 2 SCC page 288.

2. Ram Dev Food Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs St. of Guj.
2015 ACC 90 page 53.

3. Birla Corp. Ltd. Vs Adventz Investments and
Holdings Ltd. & ors. Cr. appeal no. 875 2019 decided
on 9th May 2019. Paragraph no. 82 and 83.

4. Mahmud-Ul-Rahman & ors. Vs Khazir Md. Tunda,
AIR 2015 SC 2195.

5. Vijay Dhanuka Vs Najima Mamtaz AIR 2014 SC
(suppli;), 756.
6. Abhijit Pawar Vs Hemant Madhukar Nimbalkar &
anr. (2017) 3 SC, 528.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi, J.)

1. Heard Sri Amit Daga, Advocate
assisted by Sri Anshul Kumar Singhal, learned
counsel for the applicants, at length, learned
AGA for the State and perused the record.

2. On the preliminary submissions raised
by learned counsel for the applicants based on
solitary legal issue as to whether the
summoning order dated 24.10.2019 is in
consonance with the mandate of law required
u/s 202(1) Cr.P.C. or not? This Court, with the
assistance of learned A.G.A., finds it fit to
adjudicate the present 482 application at the
threshold/admission stage itself.

3. By means of the present application
the applicants have conjured for invoking
extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against order
dated 31.05.2019 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Saharanpur
whereby the lower Revisional court, while
allowing Criminal Revision No.231 of
2018 (Pradeep Yadav v. Manish Kumar
Yadav and others) has set aside the order
dated 09.08.2018 passed by the Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Saharanpur in Criminal
Complaint No. 4578 of 2018. It has further
remanded the case to the court concerned
with the direction to pass a fresh order after
holding requisite enquiry, as per the
requirement
enunciated
under
the
provisions of Section 202(1) Cr.P.C.
Taking into account the aforesaid direction,
the learned Magisterial court, proceeded
with the case afresh, recorded statements of
the required witnesses and summoned the
applicants under Sections 323, 324, 307
and
506
I.P.C.,
vide
order
dated
24.10.2019.
342 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

4. Basic punch of the argument
advanced by learned counsel for the
applicants is that while passing the
subsequent
summoning
order
dated
24.10.2019,
learned
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate, Saharanpur has not adhered to
the mandatory requirements of law as
contemplated under Section 202(1) Cr.P.C
i.e,. neither he has enquired into the case
for himself nor directed the police to
investigate into the matter so as to record
his prima facie satisfaction and sufficiency
of grounds for the summoning of the
accused
persons.
This
solitary
legal
submission beseeched by the learned
counsel for the applicants has to be xrayed
by this court.

5. After hearing the rival submissions,
keenly perusing the orders under challenge
and the relevant documents filed in support
of instant 482 application, submitted by
counsel for the applicants, it is imperative
to pandect facts of the case :-

1. Applicant no. 1 is the son of
applicant no. 2, got married with the
daughter of opposite party no. 2, thus
basically and primarily it is a matrimonial
dispute.

2. The daughter of opposite party
no. 2, Ms. Niharika got married with
applicant no. 1 on 03.03.2014. Admittedly
contesting parties are permanent resident of
New Delhi and the said marriage too was
solemnized
in
New
Delhi.
Due
to
misfortune, the conjugal relationship got
sour and strained and there arose rift
between husband and wife, resultantly, as a
natural corollary, there were number of
civil as well as criminal litigations against
each other, including proceedings of The
Hindu Marriage Act, The Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005,
Maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. so
on and so forth, details of which has been
annexed as Annexure No.7 to the petition.
Needless to mention here that all these
proceedings are pending in different forums
at New Delhi.

3. An unfortunate incident took
place on 25.12.2016 at Saharanpur of
which an application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C was
filed before Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Saharanpur by opposite party no. 2 on
03.01.2017 with the prayer ; to direct the
police to register FIR under Section 307,
308,323,324,504,506 I.P.C., consequently
Case Crime No. 141 of 2017 was registered
at Police Station Sadar Bazar, Saharanpur
on 23.3.2017 under the aforementioned
sections of I.P.C. However, the police after
investigation submitted its 'closure report'
on 24.8.2017. The said closure report was
protested by opposite party no.2 on
11.01.2018 and learned Magistrate vide
order dated 16.3.2018 has converted the
aforesaid protest petition as complaint case
and ordered to proceed with the case in
accordance with Chapter-XV Cr.P.C and
the learned Magistrate after recording
statements u/s 200 and 202 Cr.P.C of
Puneet Kumar, Satendra Singh and Dr.
B.D. Sharma on 22.05.2018, 14.06.2018
and
05.07.2018
respectively,
passed
summoning
order
on
09.08.2018
summoning upon the applicants to face the
prosecution. In paragraph no. 20 of the
petition, it has been alleged that the learned
Magistrate has given a complete go-by to
the mandatory provisions of Section 202(1)
Cr.P.C, as he without holding any enquiry
or investigation envisaged under Section
202 Cr.P.C and without recording any
reason, in a mechanical fashion, summoned
the applicants to face the prosecution under
Section 323,324,506 IPC,dropping rest of
the sections.
7 All. Manish Kumar Yadav & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
343

4.
Aggrieved
by
this
order
of
summoning
dated
09.08.2018,
the
applicants
preferred
Criminal
Misc.
Application
bearing
No.2275/2018
whereby the Coordinate bench of this
Court, vide judgment and order dated
27.9.2018 quashed the summoning order
dated 09.08.2018 and remanded the matter
for fresh consideration.

5. On the other hand, aggrieved by
the summoning order dated 09.08.2018,
whereby the applicants were summoned
only under sections 323, 324, 506 I.P.C.,
the opposite party no.2 preferred Criminal
Revision No. 231 of 2018 in the court of
the
Additional
Sessions
Judge,
Saharanpur.

6. It is argued by the learned counsel
for
the
applicants
that
while
the
aforementioned Criminal Revision was
pending in the court of the Additional
Sessions
Judge,
Saharanpur,
Criminal
Misc. Application No. 32275 of 2018
(Manish Kumar Yadav and another v. State
of U.P. and others) under section 482
Cr.P.C. was filed by the applicants before
coordinate Bench of this Court, which was
allowed and the summoning order dated
09.08.2018 was quashed with further
direction to the court below for passing
order afresh in the matter vide Court's order
dated 27.09.2018. Learned counsel for the
applicants, however, this fact could not
brought to the knowledge of the learned
lower revisional court and the learned
revisional court too allowed the criminal
revision so preferred by the opposite party
no.2 vide its order dated 31.05.2019 and
the matter was remanded back for fresh
consideration in the light of provisions U/s
202(1) & (2) Cr.P.C. The lower revisional
court has directed to summon all the
witnesses and pass a fresh order.

6. However, pursuant to the directions
of High Court, a fresh summoning order
was passed by learned C.J.M. Saharanpur
on 24.10.2019 summonsing the applicants
under sections 323, 324, 307, 506 I.P.C.,
which is under challenge by means of
instant 482 Application.

7. From the perusal of subsequent
summoning order dated 24.10.2019, it is
evident that the learned C.J.M. Saharanpur
has carefully scrutinized the statements of
Dr. B.D. Sharma/PW-3, whereby he has
stated that injury no.1 over the injured was
bone deep injury over the scalp and the
nature of injury is quite serious which may
lead to death of injured, if the treatment is
not given within time.

8. Thus, on the above factual aspect
of the issue, it was argued by the learned
counsel for applicants(I) that the Magistrate
did not hold any enquiry or investigation as
contemplated U/s 202(1) Cr.P.C. Neither
the complainant nor the witnesses or the
other evidences are available on the record.
In order to buttress his contentions the
learned counsel for the applicants relied
upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of National Bank of
Oman V. Barakara Abdul Ajiz and others
2013(2) SCC page 288 and Ram Dev Food
Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Gujrat 2015
ACC 90 page 53. Besides this, it was also
argued that both the parties are permanent
resident of Delhi, the marriage was
solemnized in Delhi, almost all the civil as
well as criminal proceedings are pending
before different forums at Delhi, therefore,
initiation
of
present
proceedings
at
Saharanpur is nothing but arm twisting and
only for the purposes of harassment of the
applicants. The learned Magistrate before
passing the impugned summoning order
ought to have strictly adhered to the
344 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
provisions u/S 202 (1) Cr.P.C. Secondly, it
is further contended by the learned counsel
for the applicants in para 35 of the petition
that the alleged injury report of injured is a
forged document and veracity as well as
validity of Annexure 20 (injury report) was
seriously questioned on the ground that the
police while investigating into the matter
has discarded this document and eventually
submitted the closure report.

9. These are the primary grounds of
assailing the impugned summoning order
dated 24.10.2019.

10. I have carefully gone through the
impugned
summoning
order
date
24.10.2019 as well as judgment of learned
Lower Revisional Court dated 31.05.2019.

11. Before coming to the merits of case, it
is mandatory to spell out the limits of
jurisdiction of section 482 Cr.P.C attributed to
the High Court and Hon'ble Apex Court in a
most lucid terms spelled out it in the judgment
of BIRLA CORP. LTD. V. ADVENTZ
INVESTMENTS AND HOLDINGS LTD.
AND OTHERS Cr. appeal no. 875 2019
decided on 9th May 2019. Paragraph no. 82
and 83 of this judgment is quoted herein below
;

"Para 82. Exercise of power under
Section
482
Cr.P.C.
envisages
three
circumstances in which the inherent jurisdiction
may be exercised namely:- (i) to give effect to
an order under the Code; (ii) to prevent abuse
of the process of court; and (iii) to otherwise
secure the ends of justice. Inherent jurisdiction
under Section 482 Cr.P.C though wide has to
be exercised sparingly, carefully and with
caution.

Para 83 : It is well settled that the
inherent jurisdiction under Section 482
Cr.P.C is designed to achieve a salutary
purpose and that the criminal proceedings
ought not to be permitted to degenerate
into a weapon of harassment. When the
Court is satisfied that the criminal
proceedings amount to an abuse of process
of law or that it amounts to bringing
pressure upon the accused, in exercise of
the inherent powers, such proceedings can
be
quashed.
In
Smt.
Nagawwa
V.
Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi and
Others (1976) 3 SCC 736, the Supreme
Court reviewed the earlier decisions and
summarized the principles as to when the
issue of process can be quashed and held
as under :-

Once
the
Magistrate
has
exercised his discretion it is not for the
High Court, or even this Court, to
substitute its own discretion for that of the
Magistrate or to examine the case on
merits with a view to find out whether or
not the allegations in the complaint, if
proved, would ultimately end in conviction
of the accused. These consideration, in our
opinion, totally foreign to the scope and
ambit of an inquiry under Section 202 of
the Cr.P.C. which culminates into an order
under Section 204 of the Code. Thus, it may
be safely held that in the following cases an
order of the Magistrate issuing process
against the accused can be quashed or set
aside:-

(1) where the allegation made in
complaint or
the
statements
of
the
witnesses recorded in support of the same
taken at their face value make out
absolutely no case against the accused or
the complaint does not disclose the
essential ingredients of an offence which is
alleged against the accused;

(2) where the allegations made in
the complaint are patently absurd and
7 All. Manish Kumar Yadav & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
345
inherently improbable so that no prudent
person can ever reach a conclusion that
there is sufficient ground for proceeding
against the accused;

(3) where the discretion exercised
by the Magistrate in issuing process is
capricious and arbitrary having been based
either on no evidence or on materials
which
are
wholly
irrelevant
or
inadmissible; and (4) where the complaint
suffers from fundamental legal defects,
such as, want of sanction, or absence of a
complaint by legally competent authority
and the like.

The cases mentioned by us
are
purely
illustrative
and
provide
sufficient
guidelines
to
indicate
contingencies where the High Court can
quash proceedings."

12. Taking guidance from the
aforesaid authority whereby it has been
clearly mentioned that once the Magistrate
has exercised his discretion, it is not for the
High Courts to substitute its own decision
for that of the Magistrate or to examine the
case on merits with a view to find out
whether or not, the allegation in complaint,
if true, would ultimately end in conviction
of the accused. This consideration is totally
foreign to the scope and ambit of Section
202 Cr.P.C. There are only rare cases
counted on the fingertips where High
Courts should exercise its power under
Section 482 Cr.P.C viz;(i) the allegations
made in the complaint are the statements
recorded in its support, if taken on its face
value make out absolutely no case against
the accused. (ii) the allegations made in the
complaint are patently absurd or inherently
improbable and no prudent person could
ever reach on a conclusion that there is
sufficient ground against the accused. (iii)
the discretion exercised by the Magistrate
in issuing process is either capricious and
arbitrary, based on no evidence or material
which solely irrelevant and inadmissible
and lastly: (iv) complaint suffers from
fundamental legal sanction or absence of
complaint by a legally competent authority.

13. Thus this court has to examine the
argument advanced by the counsel for the
applicants and prayer sought within the
four
corners
of
above
mentioned
guidelines:

14. Before analyzing the entire
incident, it is imperative to spell out
Section 202(1) Cr.P.C.;

"202(1) : Postponement of issue
of process - Any Magistrate, on receipt of a
complaint of an offence of which he is
authorized to take cognizance or which has
been made over to him under Section 192,
may, if he thinks fit, (and shall, in a case
where the accused is residing at a place
beyond the area in which he exercise his
jurisdiction, ) postpone the issue of process
against the accused, and either inquire into
the case himself or direct an investigation
to be made by a police officer or by such
other person as he thinks fit, for the
purpose of deciding whether or not there is
sufficient ground for proceeding.

Provided that no such direction for
investigation shall be made,-

(a) where it appears to the Magistrate
that the offence complained of is triable
exclusively by the Court of Session; or

(b) where the complaint has not been
made by a Court, unless the complainant
and the witnesses present (if any) have
been examined on oath under Section 200."

15. In the case of Mahmud-UlRahman and others V. Khazir Md. Tunda,
346 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
AIR 2015 SC 2195, it has been explicitly
mentioned by Hon'ble Apex Court that the
steps taken by ld. Magistrate U/s 190(1) (a)
of Cr.P.C followed by Section 204 Cr.P.C.
should reflect that the learned Magistrate
has applied his judicial mind to the facts,
statements of the witnesses and he is
satisfied that there is grounds for proceed
further in the matter by asking the persons
against whom the violation of law is
alleged, to appear before the court. The
satisfaction on the ground for proceeding
would mean that the facts alleged in the
complaints would constitute an offence and
when considered alongwith statements
recorded would prima facie makes the
accused answerable. The Magistrate should
not act as a post office in taking cognizance
in each and ever complaint filed before him
and issue process as a matter of a course.
There must be a sufficient indication in the
order passed by Magistrate that he is
satisfied
that
the
allegations
in
the
complaint constitute an offence and when
considered
alongwith
the
statements
recorded and in result of enquiry or report
of investigation U/s 202 of Cr.P.C, if any,
the accused is answerable before the court
there is ground for proceeding against the
accused U/s 204 Cr.P.C by issuing
processes for appearance. Application of
mind is best demonstrated by disclosure of
mind on the satisfaction. If there is no such
indication in a case where Magistrate is
proceeding U/s 190/204 Cr.P.C the High
Court U/s 482 Cr.P.C is bound to invoke its
inherent powers to prevent the abuse of
powers of the Criminal Courts to call an
accused, is a serious matter affecting one's
dignity self-esteem and respect hence the
process of Crl. Court should not be make
weapon of harassment.

16. On the similar pattern in the case
of Vijay Dhanuka V. Najima Mamtaz AIR
2014 SC (suppli;), 756, the relevant
paragraph no. 12 is quoted herein below :

"12:- The use of the expression
"shall" prima facie makes the inquiry or the
investigation, as the case may be, by the
Magistrate mandatory. The word shall is
ordinarily mandatory but sometimes, taking
into account the context or the intention, it
can be held to be directory. The use of the
word shall in all circumstances is not
decisive. Bearing in mind the aforesaid
principle, when we look to the intention of
the legislature, we find that it is aimed to
prevent innocent persons from harassment
by
unscrupulous
persons
from
false
complaints. Hence, in our opinion, the use
of the expression shall and the background
and the purpose for which the amendment
has been brought, we have no doubt in our
mind that inquiry or the investigation, as
the case may be, is mandatory before
summons are issued against the accused
living beyond the territorial jurisdiction of
the Magistrate. In view of the decision of
this Court in the case of Udai Shankar
Awasthi V. State of U.P. (2013) 2 SCC
435, this point need not detain us any
further as in the said case, this Court has
clearly held that provision aforesaid is
mandatory. It is apt to reproduce the
following passage from the said judgment.

40. The Magistrate had issued
summons without meeting the mandatory
requirement of Section 202, Cr.P.C,
thought the appellants were outside his
territorial jurisdiction. The provisions of
Section 202, Cr.P.C. were amended vide
the Amendment Act, 2005, making it
mandatory to postpone the issue of process
where the accused resides in a area beyond
the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate
concerned. The same was found necessary
in order to protect innocent persons from
7 All. Manish Kumar Yadav & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
347
being harassed by unscrupulous persons
and
making
it obligatory
upon
the
Magistrate to enquire into the case himself,
or to direct investigation to be made by a
police officer, or by such other persons as
he thinks fit for the purpose of finding out
whether or not, there was sufficient ground
for proceeding against the accused before
issuing summons in such cases."

17.

The
next
question
for
consideration is, what does "enquiry"
means. The expression has been defined in
Section 2(g) of the Code, which means,
every enquiry, other than trial, under this
code by a Magistrate or "Court." It is
evident from the aforesaid provision, every
enquiry other than trial conducted by
Magistrate or a court is an enquiry, no
specific mode or manner is provided viz;
201(1) Cr.P.C. The enquiry envisage U/s
202 Cr.P.C., the witnesses are examined
whereas U/s 200 Cr.P.C. examination of
complainant is necessary with the option of
examining of witnesses present, if any.
This exercise by the Magistrate with the
sole objective and purpose for deciding
whether or not there is sufficient grounds
for proceeding against an accused, is
nothing but an enquiry envisage U/s 202
Cr.P.C. The under-line idea is that, before
exercising power U/s 203/204 Cr.P.C. it is
incumbent upon the Magistrate to took into
the allegations made in the complaint,
statements recorded U/s 200, 202 Cr.P.C.
and if there are witnesses to the incident,
then take the help of those witnesses while
arriving to a particular conclusion. There
cannot be a straight jacketed design or
formula in holding the enquiry.

18. In the instant case, if the court
compares the summoning order, it is
evident that the learned Magistrate has
relied upon the statement of Dr. B.D.
Sharma/P.W.-3, whereby it has been
opined by him that the proposed accused
has inflicted weapon upon the head,
causing a head injury which may lead to
demise of the injured Pradeep Kumar
Yadav. The learned counsel for the
applicants has seriously questioned the
validity of injury report issued by District
Hospital, Saharanpur (Annexure No.20 of
the petition). From the injury report, it is
clear that on 25.12.2016 at 8.40 A.M., the
injured was admitted in the hospital and at
9.10 P.M. he was discharged. It was
strenuously asserted by learned counsel for
the applicants that in this short span of time
injuries of Section 307 I.P.C. cannot be
examined. I am afraid to accept this
contention
of
learned
counsel.
For
assessing the gravity of any injury the
weapon used, seat of injury, its dimension
are relevant. Time of dressing is not at all
relevant. Even a lethal blow could be
inflicted by an article on the vital part of
body which could be dressed within short
span of time. It would not mitigate the
gravity of offence. On this premises alone I
do not find any irregularity or abnormality
in the injury report. However, the learned
Magistrate has got no mechanism at the
stage of summoning to check the veracity
of a particular document/injury report. The
fact finds force when the Dr. B.D.
Sharma/PW-3 in no uncertain terms in his
deposition as PW-3 categorically opined
that the injured has sustained a lacerated
wound of 2.5 x 0.5 c.m. bone deep over the
skull, above the right ear and the blood was
oozing out in the said injury and was
advised X-ray. Secondly, red abrasion
measuring 5.0 x 2.0 cm over the right chest
and according to doctor, all the injuries
would be sustained by a iron rod or saria.
The injury no.1 could be caused by some
sharp edged weapon or iron rod or saria,
rest of the injuries were simple in nature.
348 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
This fact fully corroborates the prosecution
story. Needless to mention here that the
learned lower
revisional court while
allowing the revision dated 31.05.2019, has
directed the learned Magistrate to record
the deposition of all the witnesses and
accordingly, the statement of Youddhvir
Singh as PW-4 and Sushil Jain as PW-5
were penned down. It is contended that the
statements of these two persons surfaced
for the first time in second innings and
prior to that there was no whisper regarding
their presence over the site. No doubt that
for the offences triable by the Sessions, the
requirement of law is to summon all the
prosecution witnesses to examine in the
court. The presence of these witnesses
could be disputed during trial and this
ground is not sufficient to upset the
summoning order.

19. The learned A.G.A. again has
drawn the attention of the Court in the
judgment of ABHIJIT PAWAR VS.
HEMANT MADHUKAR NIMBALKAR
AND ANOTHER (2017) (3) SC, 528,
which too has toe the chain of earlier
judgments.
As
mentioned
above,
no
specific mode and manner is prescribed to
conduct the enquiry by the Magistrate. If
the Magistrate after holding this matter of
exercise is prima-facie satisfy that the
accused/applicants
are
committed
the
offence punishable U/s 323, 324, 307, 506
I.P.C. and for issuing summons U/s 204
Cr.P.C. and while doing so he has spelled
out
the
reasons
for
his
satisfaction/conclusion relying upon the
statements of the doctor. The prosecution
case, whereby the accused persons were
assailants who caused the lethal and
grievous injuries over the skull of the
injured, which could have caused his death,
if the timely treatment was not given. I find
that the learned Magistrate has achieved the
target and the order impugned is a well
reasoned order whereby he has spelled out
the
reasons
of
satisfaction,
which
corroborates the prosecution story. At the
stage of summoning he is not required to
give sound and detailed reason and the
depositions of thrashing each and every
prosecution witness in depth. In my
opinion,
the
learned
Magistrate
has
'enquired' into the matter as contemplated
in Section 202(1) Cr.P.C. and passed
sufficiently reasonable summoning order.
For
the
aforesaid
reasons
and
circumstances, the present 482 application
falls
flat
and
do
not
warrant
any
interference
U/s
482
Cr.P.C.
and
accordingly dismissed.

20. It is given to understand that the
applicants have not surrendered till date.
The applicants are directed to appear before
the court concerned on or before 30th July,
2020 and seek bail, during this period no
coercive action shall be taken against them
----------
(2020)07ILR A348
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.01.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 3431 of 2020

Udai Sengar ...Applicant
Versus

State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, Sri Jitendra
Kumar Rawat, Sri Himanshi Srivastava,
Smt. Anita Srivastava.

Counsel for the Opposite Parties: