# Mukesh Kharwar v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 9 ILRA 457
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-09-02
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 24716 of 2024
- **Bench:** Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mukesh-kharwar-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52362
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Section 156(3) -an application under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved by the
applicant-rejected-iM.P.ugned-no
sufficient
reason disclosed to treat the application under
section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as a coM.P.laint-merely
because the facts are in the knowledge of the
Applicant- direction to lodge FIR cannot be
refused-the gravity/seriousness of the offence-
the requirement of the evidence and interest of
justice need be considered in passing the order
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C-iM.P.ugned order
does not assign any valid reason nor reflects
application of judicious mind and has been
passed in a mechanical manner-iM.P.ugned
order set aside.

Application allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

9 All. Mukesh Kharwar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
457
award passed by the Lok Adalat. The same
can be challenged only by way of a petition
under
Section
226
or
227
of
the
Constitution of India and not otherwise and
the aforesaid views have already been
affirmed in Bharvagi Construction (supra)
by the Apex Court. In view thereof, the
instant application under Section 482
Cr.P.C. against the award of Lok Adalat is
not maintainable. Therefore, this Court
while exercising the jurisdiction under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot interfere with
the Award passed by the Lok Adalat, which
is a decree passed by civil court, and is not
amenbale to the criminal jurisdiction under
Section 482 Cr.P.C.

15. With the aforesaid observations,
the instant application is disposed of.

16. The Registrar (Compliance) is
directed to communicate this order to the
State Legal Services Authority as well as
all the District Legal Services Authorities,
who shall communicate this order to all the
Presiding Officers holding the Lok Adalat.
---------
(2024) 9 ILRA 457
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.09.2024

BEFORE

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

Application U/S 482 No. 24716 of 2024

Mukesh Kharwar ...Applicant
 Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Kailash Pati Singh Yadav

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Section 156(3) -an application under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved by the
applicant-rejected-iM.P.ugned-no
sufficient
reason disclosed to treat the application under
section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as a coM.P.laint-merely
because the facts are in the knowledge of the
Applicant- direction to lodge FIR cannot be
refused-the gravity/seriousness of the offence-
the requirement of the evidence and interest of
justice need be considered in passing the order
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C-iM.P.ugned order
does not assign any valid reason nor reflects
application of judicious mind and has been
passed in a mechanical manner-iM.P.ugned
order set aside.

Application allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. Anmol Singh Vs St. of U.P. & ors.reported in
2021 (1) ADJ 400
2. Sukhwasi Vs St. of U.P., 2007(59) ACC 739

3. Lalita Kumari Vs Goverment of U.P. & anr.,
reported in 2014 (2) SCC 1

4. Suresh Chand Jain Vs St. of M.P. &
anr.reported in (2001) 2 SCC 628

5. Lalaram Vs St. of U.P. & ors. passed in
Criminal Revision No. 1611 of 2020, decided on
18.12.2020
(Neutral
Citation
No.
-
2020:AHC:119365)

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

1. Heard Mr. Manish Kumar Singh,
Advocate holding brief of Mr. Kailash Pati
Singh, learned counsel for the applicant as
well as Mr. D.P. Singh, learned AGA for
the State and perused the record.

2. This application under Section 482
Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the
458 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
impugned order dated 08.05.2024 passed
by Special Judge SC/ST Act Chandauli in
Criminal Misc. Case No.78 of 2024
(Mukesh Kharwar vs. Arun Kumar and
Others), Police Station- Baluwa, District-
Chandauli as well as stay the further
proceedings of the aforesaid case, pending
in the court of Special Judge SC/ST Act
Chandauli.

3. Considering the nature of the order
under challenge as well as order proposed
to be passed, as purely equal question is
involved, no fruitful purpose will be served
in keeping this matter pending, therefore,
the matter is being decided at this stage
without calling for counter affidavit.

4. Brief facts of the case are that an
application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
was moved by the applicant with the
allegations that the applicant is an elected
Member of Kshetra Panchayat, Kshetra
Sankhya 83, Kshetra Papaura Vikas Khand
Chahaniya,
District-
Chandauli.
On
04.03.2024, the applicant along with 66
Kshetra Panchayat Members had gathered
at the office of the District Magistrate,
Chandauli to propose no confidence motion
against
Arun
Kumar
Jaiswal,
Block
Pramukh Chahaniya, District- Chandauli.
Annoyed by the aforesaid, on 14.03.2023 at
about 08:15 am when the applicant was
performing pooja at the village's Radha
Krishna Mandir, villagers namely Gopal
Singh @ Bablu and Monu Singh reached
there and forced the applicant to sign on the
affidavit in favour of Block Pramukh.
When the applicant refused to sign the
same, they used abusive language, caste
indicative words and assaulted him. They
forcefully tried to take him on the
motorcycle and assaulted him with hand
and fist. Hearing the noise, the applicant's
wife and other villagers reached there and
tried to intervene. It has been further
alleged that the applicant tried to lodge an
FIR by giving an application before the
concerned police station but of no avail,
therefore, the present application has been
filed. The aforesaid application was treated
as complaint case thus, refusing the prayer
to issue direction to lodge the FIR on the
ground that the facts of the case were
known to the applicant.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant
submits that the application under Section
156(3) Cr.P.C. discloses commission of
cognizable offence and as such the
Magistrate
must
have
directed
for
registration of first information report and
investigation by the police, instead of
treating the application as a complaint case.
He further submits that the order impugned
has been passed mechanically and in a
routine manner, which does not manifest
the application of judicious mind to the
facts of the case and law applicable therein.
In support of his submission, he has placed
reliance upon the judgment passed by this
Court in the case of Anmol Singh vs. State
of U.P. and Others reported in 2021 (1)
ADJ 400.

6. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand
has supported the impugned order and has
pointed out that the grievance of the
applicant has not gone unattended by the
court below. The court below after taking
into consideration the entire gamut of the
facts and circumstances of the case has
rightly concluded to treat the application
filed by the applicant under Section 156 (3)
Cr.P.C. as a complaint. The applicant shall
still have an opportunity to prove his case
before the court below.

7. Having heard the learned counsel
for the parties, the following question has
9 All. Mukesh Kharwar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
459
come up for consideration before this Court
:-

8. Whether the Magistrate is bound to
pass an order on each and every application
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. containing
allegations of commission of a cognizable
offence for registration of the F.I.R. and its
investigation by the police even if those
allegations, prima-facie, do not appear to
be genuine and do not appeal to reason, or
he can exercise judicial discretion in the
matter and can pass order for treating it as
'complaint' or to reject it in suitable cases?

9. In other words, the question arises
that when a Magistrate is approached by a
complainant with an application praying for
a direction to the police under Section
156(3) Cr.P.C. to register and investigate
an alleged cognizable offence, why he
should :-

(a) grant the relief of registration
of a case and its investigation by the police
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and when
should he

(b) treat the application as a
complaint and follow the procedure of
Chapter XV of Cr.P.C.

10. Before dealing with the question,
it will be appropriate to discuss some
provisions to answer the aforesaid question.

11. Section 154 and 156 Cr. P. C.
provides
for
the
registration
and
investigation of complaint. The same are
reproduced herein under:-

"154. Information in cognizable
cases.

(1) Every information relating to
the commission of a cognizable offence, if
given orally to an officer in charge of a
police station, shall be reduced to writing
by him or under his direction, and be read
Over to the informant; and every such
information, whether given in writing or
reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be
signed by the person giving it, and the
substance thereof shall be entered in a
book to be kept by such officer in such form
as the State Government may prescribe in
this behalf.

(2) A copy of the information as
recorded under sub- section (1) shall be
given forthwith, free of cost, to the
informant.

(3)Any person aggrieved by a
refusal on the part of an officer in charge
of a police station to record the information
referred to in subsection (1) may send the
substance of such information, in writing
and by post, to the Superintendent of Police
concerned who, if satisfied that such
information discloses the commission of a
cognizable offence, shall either investigate
the case himself or direct an investigation
to
be made
by any police
officer
subordinate to him, in the manner provided
by this Code, and such officer shall have all
the powers of an officer in charge of the
police station in relation to that offence."

12. Section 156 Cr.P.C. is quoted
herein below:-

"156. Police officer' s power to
investigate cognizable case.

(1) Any officer in charge of a
police station may, without the order of a
Magistrate, investigate any cognizable case
which a Court having jurisdiction over the
local area within the limits of such station
would have power to inquire into or try
under the provisions of Chapter XIII.

(2) No proceeding of a police
officer in any such case shall at any stage
be called in question on the ground that the
460 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
case was one which such officer was not
empowered
under
this
section
to
investigate.

(3) Any Magistrate empowered
under section 190 may order such an
investigation as above- mentioned."

13. From the perusal of the aforesaid
provision as well as Section 154 Cr.P.C., it
is evident that the police can investigate
into matters relating to commission of
'cognizable offences' brought to its notice
under section 154 Cr.P.C. Officer-in-charge
of police station has power to investigate
U/S 156(1) in such case. Magistrate has
power to take cognizance u/s 190 Cr.P.C.
on receiving the 'complaint'. Thus the
matter relating to section 156 (3) relates to
power of Magistrate to order investigation
by police in matters relating to cognizable
offences
brought
before
it
through
complaint. Complaint has been defined in
section 2(d) Cr.P.C. of as follows :
"complaint' means any allegation made
orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a
view to his taking action under this Code,
that some person whether known or
unknown, has committed an offence, but
does not include a Police report." Code of
Criminal Procedure has given different type
of powers to deal with such matters relating
to commission of cognizable offences when
brought before it. A Division bench of this
Court in the case of 'Sukhwasi v. State of
U.P., 2007(59) ACC 739' held as under:

"Applications
under
section
156(3) Cr.P.C. are coming in torrents.
Provisions under section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
should be used sparingly. They should not
be used unless there is something unusual
and extra ordinary like miscarriage of
justice which warrants a direction to the
Police to register a case. Such application
should not be allowed because the law
provides them with an alternative remedy
of filing a complaint; therefore, recourse
should not normally be permitted for
availing the provisions of section 156(3)
Cr.P.C.

The
reference
is,
therefore,
answered in the manner that it is not
incumbent upon a Magistrate to allow an
application section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and
there is no such legal mandate."

However, the said judgement
does not provide any reason as to why FIR
should not be registered in respect of a
cognizable offence.

14. The Apex Court in the case of
Lalita Kumari Vs Goverment of Uttar
Pradesh and another, reported in 2014 (2)
SCC 1 has discussed as follows :-

"i)
Registration
of
FIR
is
mandatory under Section 154 of the Code,
if the information discloses commission of
a cognizable offence and no preliminary
inquiry is permissible in such a situation.

ii) If the information received
does not disclose a cognizable offence but
indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a
preliminary inquiry may be conducted only
to ascertain whether cognizable offence is
disclosed or not.

iii) If the inquiry discloses the
commission of a cognizable offence, the
FIR must be registered. In cases where
preliminary inquiry ends in closing the
complaint, a copy of the entry of such
closure must be supplied to the first
informant forthwith and not later than one
week. It must disclose reasons in brief for
closing the complaint and not proceeding
further.

iv) The police officer cannot
avoid his duty of registering offence if
cognizable offence is disclosed. Action
must be taken against erring officers who
9 All. Mukesh Kharwar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
461
do not register the FIR if information
received by him discloses a cognizable
offence.

v) The scope of preliminary
inquiry is not to verify the veracity or
otherwise of the information received but
only to ascertain whether the information
reveals any cognizable offence.

vi) As to what type and in which
cases
preliminary
inquiry
is
to
be
conducted will depend on the facts and
circumstances of each case. The category
of cases in which preliminary inquiry may
be made are as under:

a) Matrimonial disputes/ family
disputes

b) Commercial offences

c) Medical negligence cases

d) Corruption cases

e) Cases where there is abnormal
delay/laches
in
initiating
criminal
prosecution, for example, over 3 months
delay in reporting the matter without
satisfactorily explaining the reasons for
delay.

The
aforesaid
are
only
illustrations and not exhaustive of all
conditions which may warrant preliminary
inquiry.

vii)
While
ensuring
and
protecting the rights of the accused and the
complainant, a preliminary inquiry should
be made time bound and in any case it
should not exceed 7 days. The fact of such
delay and the causes of it must be reflected
in the General Diary entry.

viii)
Since
the
General
Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary is the
record of all information received in a
police
station,
we
direct
that
all
information relating to cognizable offences,
whether resulting in registration of FIR or
leading to an inquiry, must be mandatorily
and meticulously reflected in the said Diary
and the decision to conduct a preliminary
inquiry
must
also
be
reflected,
as
mentioned above."

15. From the above discussion, it is
clear that the scheme of Cr.P.C. and the
prevailing circumstances require that the
option to direct the registration of the case
and its investigation by the police should be
exercised where some "investigation" is
required, which is of a nature that is not
possible for the private complainant, and
which can only be done by the police upon
whom statute has conferred the powers
essential for investigation, for example

(1) where the full details of the
accused are not known to the complainant
and the same can be determined only as a
result of investigation, or

(2) where recovery of abducted
person or stolen property is required to be
made by conducting raids or searches of
suspected places or persons, or

(3) where for the purpose of
launching a successful prosecution of the
accused evidence is required to be collected
and preserved. To illustrate by example
cases
may
be visualised
where
for
production before Court at the trial (a)
sample of blood soaked soil is to be taken
and kept sealed for fixing the place of
incident; or (b) recovery of case property is
to be made and kept sealed; or (c) recovery
under Section 27 of the Evidence Act; or
(d) preparation of inquest report; or (e)
witnesses are not known and have to be
found out or discovered through the
process of investigation.

16. Thus, where the complainant is in
possession of the complete details of all the
accused as well as the witnesses who have
to be examined and neither recovery is
needed nor any such material evidence is
required to be collected which can be done
462 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
only by the police, no "investigation"
would normally be required and the
procedure of complaint case should be
adopted. It must be kept in mind that
adding unnecessary cases to the diary of the
police would impair their efficiency in
respect
of
cases
genuinely
requiring
investigation. Besides even after taking
cognizance and proceeding under Chapter
XV the Magistrate can still under Section
202(1) Cr. P.C. order investigation, even
thought of a limited nature.

17. The position has been clarified in
the judgement passed by the Apex Court in
the case of Suresh Chand Jain vs. State of
M.P. and Another reported in (2001) 2
SCC 628 which while dealing with the
issue has held as follows :-

"Any Judicial Magistrate, before
taking cognizance of the offence, can order
investigation under Section 156(3) of the
Code. If he does so, he is not to examine
the complainant on oath because he was
not taking cognizance of any offence
therein. For the purpose of enabling the
police to start investigation it is open to the
Magistrate to direct the police to register
an FIR. There is nothing illegal in doing
so. After all registration of an FIR involves
only
the
process
of
entering
the
substance of the information relating to
the commission of the cognizable offence
in a book kept by the officer in charge of
the police station as indicated in Section
154 of the Code. Even if a Magistrate
does not say in so many words while
directing investigation under Section
156(3) of the Code that an FIR should be
registered, it is the duty of the officer in
charge of the police station to register
the FIR regarding the cognizable offence
disclosed by the complaint because that
police officer could take further steps
contemplated in Chapter XII of the Code
only thereafter."

18. The Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court while dealing with the issue in the
case of Lalaram v. State of U.P. and 13
others passed in Criminal Revision
No.
1611
of
2020,
decided
on
18.12.2020 (Neutral Citation No. -
2020:AHC:119365) has summarized the
following propositions :-

"40.
From
the
aforesaid
judgments,
some
of
the
following
proposition of law, well settled, may be
summarized as under :-

(40.01). Under Section 154 of
the Code, if the information discloses
commission of a cognizable offence it is
the mandatory duty of the police officer
in charge to register the FIR. He cannot
avoid his duty of registering offence, if
cognizable offence is made out.

(40.02).
If
FIR
is
not
registered, the person aggrieved by a
refusal to record the information has
remedy to approach the Superintendent
of Police by submitting an application in
writing and by post to enable him to
satisfy if such information discloses the
commission of a cognizable offence and
in case of such satisfaction, either to
investigate
himself
or
direct
an
investigation to be made by any police
officer subordinate to him.

(40.03). If the person still feels
aggrieved from inaction of the police
authorities he has the remedy to approach
the Magistrate by way of application under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.,

(40.04). On such an application
having been made, if, the Magistrate finds
that a cognizable offence is made out, the
Magistrate may direct the police to register
9 All. Mukesh Kharwar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
463
the FIR and investigate the matter, without
taking cognizance.

(40.05). The other option open to
the Magistrate is to take cognizance on the
complaint, register it as a complaint case
and
proceed
as
per
the
procedure
prescribed under Chapter

XV Cr.P.C. The Magistrate would
record the statement of the complainant
and the witnesses if any present, under
Section 200 Cr.P.C. He may, if he thinks fit
and shall in cases where accused resides
outside the area of exercise of jurisdiction
of the Magistrate concerned, either enquire
into the case himself or direct an
investigation to be made by a police officer
or by such other person as he thinks fit,
under Section 202(1) Cr.P.C. Thereafter,
he shall pass order, either under Section
203 dismissing the complaint, for brief
reasons to be recorded, or he shall issue
process under Section 204 Cr.P.C.

(40.06). In either case, i.e. issuing
direction for investigation by the police
officer under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. or
taking cognizance and registering it as a
complaint case, the Magistrate has to apply
judicial mind. There cannot be mechanical
exercise of jurisdiction or exercise in a
routine manner. Mere statement in the
order that he has gone through the
complaint, documents and heard the
complainant will not be sufficient. What
weighed with the Magistrate to order
investigation or to take cognizance should
be reflected in the order, although a
detailed expression of his view is neither
required nor warranted.

(40.07).
The
exercise
of
discretion by the Magistrate is basically
guided by interest of justice, from case to
case.

(40.08). However, where some
investigation is required which is of a nature
that is not possible for the private
complainant and which can only be done by
the police officer upon whom statute has
conferred
the
powers
essential
for
investigation, the option to direct the
registration of the FIR and its investigation
by the police officer should be exercised, for
example:-

(i) where the full details of the
accused are not known to the complainant
and the same can be determined only as a
result of investigation, or

(ii) where recovery of abducted
person or stolen property is required to be
made by conducting raids or searches of
suspected places or persons, or

(iii) where for the purpose of
launching a successful prosecution of the
accused evidence is required to be collected
and preserved, and to illustrate this, by few
example cases may be visualised where for
production before Court at the trial

(a) sample of blood soaked soil is
to be taken and kept sealed for fixing the
place of incident; or

(b) recovery of case property is to
be made and kept sealed; or

(c) recovery under Section 27 of
the Evidence Act; or

(d) preparation of inquest report;
or

(e) witnesses are not known and
have to be found out or discovered through
the process of investigation.

(40.09). Where the complainant is
in possession of the complete details of all
the accused and the witnesses who have to
be examined and neither recovery is
needed nor any such material evidence is
required to be collected which can be done
only by the police, no "investigation" would
normally be required and the procedure of
complaint case should be adopted.

(40.10). Category of cases falling
under para 120.6 in Lalita Kumari (Supra)
i.e.
464 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(a) Matrimonial disputes/family
disputes

(b) Commercial offences

(c) Medical negligence cases,

(d) Corruption cases

(e)
Cases
where
there
is
abnormal
delay
in
filling
criminal
complaint etc. may fall under Section 202
Cr.P.C .

(40.11). The Magistrate should
also keep in view that primarily, it is the
duty of the State/police to investigate the
cases
involving
cognizable
offence.
Generally, the burden of proof to bring the
guilt of the accused is on the State and this
burden is a heavy burden to prove the guilt
beyond all reasonable doubts. This burden
should not unreasonably be shifted on an
individual/complainant from the State by
treating the application under Section
156(3) Cr.P.C. as a complaint case.

(40.12). The investigation which
the police officer or such other person
makes in pursuance of the direction of the
Magistrate under Section 202(1) Cr.P.C. is
the same kind of investigation as is
required to be conducted by police officer,
under Chapter XII Cr.P.C. which ends with
submission of the report as per Section
173(2) Cr.P.C.

(40.13). The distinction between
the investigation by the police officer under
Section 156(3) and under Section 202(1)
Cr.P.C. is that the former is at the precognizance stage and the latter is at post
cognizance stage, when the Magistrate is
seisin of the case. The investigation under
Section 202(1) Cr.P.C. is for the purpose of
ascertaining the truth or false hood of the
complaint for helping the Magistrate to
decide, whether or not there is sufficient
ground, for him to proceed further against
the accused by issuing process, whereas,
the inquiry report under Section 173(2)
Cr.P.C. of the investigation made by the
police of its own or under the directions of
the Magistrate under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C. is for the purpose of enabling the
Magistrate to take cognizance of an offence
under Section 190(1)(a) Cr.P.C.

(40.14). Once cognizance is taken
on the application under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C. by the Magistrate and he embarks
upon the procedure embodied in Chapter
XV, he would not be competent to revert to
the pre-cognizance stage under Section
156(3) Cr.P.C.

(40.15). If the Magistrate did not
order for police investigation under Section
156(3) Cr.P.C. and took cognizance of the
case, that would not be bar to the exercise
of the power of the Magistrate for directing
the police investigation under Section
202(1) Cr.P.C."

19. Perusal of the impugned order
shows that no sufficient reason has been
disclosed, on the basis of which, the
Magistrate has proceeded to treat the
application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as
a complaint. Merely because the facts are
in the knowledge of the applicant, direction
to lodge FIR cannot be refused. The
gravity/seriousness of the offence; the
requirement of the evidence for the purpose
of launching a successful prosecution, and
basically the interest of justice depending
on the facts of each case, need be
considered in passing the order under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The impugned order
does not assign any valid reason nor
reflects application of judicious mind and
has been passed in a mechanical manner
only on the ground that the facts of the case
were within the knowledge of the applicant,
thus, the same is liable to be set-aside.

20. The present Application U/S 482
is allowed.
9 All. Mohammad Rizvan Khan & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
465

21. Accordingly, the impugned order
dated 08.05.2024 is set aside with the
direction to the court concerned to pass a
fresh order on the application under Section
156(3) Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant after
affording opportunity of hearing to both the
parites, in accordance with law, within a
period of one month from the date of
production of certified copy of this order.
---------
(2024) 9 ILRA 465
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.09.2024

BEFORE

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

Application U/S 482 No. 28390 of 2024

Mohammad Rizvan Khan & Ors.
 ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Shyam Sunder Mishra

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Summoning order-impugned-passed without
reason-failure to provide reasons in judicial
decisions undermines the principles of natural
justice-such orders may be deemed arbitrary
and unjust-quashed-direction to pass a fresh
and speaking order.

Application allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

Sant Lal Gupta & ors. Vs Modern Co-operative
Group Housing Society Ltd. & ors.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani
Chauhan, J.)

1. आवेदक्‌ के्‌ शलए्‌ पवद्वान्‌ अगधवक्ता्‌
श्री्‌ श्याम सुांदर्‌ शमश्रा्‌ के्‌ सांक्षक्षप्त्‌ धारक्‌ पवद्वान्‌
अगधवक्ता्‌
श्री्‌
राजीव्‌
द्पववेदी, और राज्य्‌
के्‌
शलए्‌ पवद्वान्‌ ए.जी.ए.्‌ श्री्‌ डी.पी.्‌ शसांह्‌ को्‌ सुना्‌
गया्‌ और्‌ अशभलेख्‌ का पररशीलन्‌ ककया्‌ गया।

2. दां.प्र.सां. की्‌ धारा्‌ 482 के्‌ अांतगफत्‌ यह्‌
आवेदन, आरोप्‌ पत्र्‌ ददनाांककत 09.10.2022 और्‌
सांज्ञान्‌
आदेश/समन्‌
आदेश्‌
ददनाांककत्‌
23.02.2024 के्‌
साथ-साथ मुकदमा्‌
अपराध्‌
सांख्या्‌
171/2024 अन्तगफत्‌
धारा्‌
354, 452,
504, 323 भा.दां.सां., थाना-कोतवाली, जजला-
र्तेहपुर्‌
से्‌
उद्भूत्‌
अपरागधक्‌
मुकदमा्‌
सां.्‌
171/2024 (राज्य बनाम्‌ मोहम्मद्‌ ररजवान्‌ खान्‌
और्‌ अन्य), जो्‌ शसपवल्‌ जज्‌ (जूननयर्‌ डडवीजन)/
एर्.टी.सी/्‌ सी.ए.डब्ल्यू, र्तेहपुर्‌ की्‌ अदालत्‌ में्‌
लांत्रबत्‌ है, की्‌ सम्पूणफ कायफवाही्‌ को्‌ रद्द्‌ करने्‌ के्‌
शलए्‌ दायर्‌ ककया्‌ गया्‌ है।

3. आवेदकों्‌
के्‌
पवद्वान्‌
अगधवक्ता्‌
ने्‌
प्रस्तुत्‌ ककया्‌ कक्‌ ददनाांक्‌ 13.09.2022 की्‌ घटना्‌
के्‌ शलए, आवेदक्‌ मोहम्मद्‌ ररजवान्‌ खान, गुड्डू्‌
उर्फ्‌
मोहम्मद्‌ रेहान्‌ और मोहम्मद्‌ नदीम्‌ खान्‌
के्‌
खखलार््‌
प्रनतपक्षी्‌
सांख्या्‌
2 द्वारा्‌
ददनाांक्‌
15.09.2022 को्‌ लगभग्‌ 17:21 बजे्‌ भा.दां.सां.्‌
की्‌
धारा्‌
354, 452, 323, 504 के्‌
तहत्‌
एर्आईआर दजफ्‌ की्‌ गई्‌ है।्‌ पववेचना्‌ के्‌ बाद्‌
आवेदकों्‌ के्‌ खखलार््‌ ददनाांक्‌
09.10.2022 को्‌
आरोप पत्र्‌ प्रस्तुत्‌ ककया्‌ गया, जजस्‌ पर्‌ सांबांगधत्‌
न्यायालय्‌
ने्‌
केवल्‌
दो्‌
व्यजक्तयों, यानी्‌
मोहम्मद्‌
ररजवान्‌
खान्‌
और्‌
गुड्डू्‌
उर्फ्‌
मोहम्मद्‌ रेहान्‌ के्‌ खखलार््‌ ददनाांक 23.02.2024
को्‌ सांज्ञान्‌ शलया, त्रबना्‌ यह्‌ उल्लेख्‌ ककए्‌ कक्‌
आरोपी्‌ मोहम्मद्‌ नदीम्‌ खान को्‌ दोिमुक्त्‌ क्यों्‌