# Sanjay Singh & Anr v. State of U.P. & Anr. 652 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

- **Citation:** (2021) 8 ILRA 651
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-08-05
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482. No. 6826 of 2021
- **Bench:** Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sanjay-singh-anr-v-state-of-u-p-anr-652-indian-law-reports-allahabad-series-47284
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Law-Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,1973-Section 482 - Indian
Penal Code,1860-Sections 323,504,506
& SC/ST Act,1989-Section 3(1) (r) &
3(1)(s)-quashing of summoning orderthe allegations in the complaint have
been found to be corroborated in the
statement made on oath u/s 200 and
also
during
inquiry
made
by
the
Magistrate u/s 202-Trial court justified
in issuing process u/s 204 as the same
has
been
passed
taking
into
consideration the available material on
record-At this stage, the Magistrate had
only to decide whether sufficient ground
exists or not for further proceeding in
the matter.(Para 1 to 13)

The application is dismissed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

8 All. Sanjay Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
651
should be adopted. The facts of the present
case given below serve as an example. 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..."

27. It is therefore seen that upon an
application received under Section 156(3)
disclosing
a
cognizable
offence,
the
Magistrate may direct the police to register
the F.I.R. and investigate or alternatively the
Magistrate can take cognizance of the
complaint, register it as complaint case and
follow the procedure under Chapter XV of
the Code. While exercising this discretion
and taking either of the courses, it would be
incumbent upon the Magistrate to apply
judicial mind and the exercise of discretion
would have to be guided by interest of
justice, depending upon the facts of the case.
In a situation where the investigation required
is of a nature which can only be made by a
police officer upon whom the statute has
conferred the powers of investigation, the
Magistrate may be well within his discretion
to direct the registration of an F.I.R. and its
investigation by the police officer. In a case
where the complainant is in possession of the
complete details of the case and also the
material evidence, such that 'investigation' by
the police may not be required, the
Magistrate may follow the procedure of a
complaint case.

28. It may be added that while
exercising the discretion in regard to such
matters the Magistrate would be required to
keep in view that under the scheme of the
Code an affirmative obligation is cast on the
police to investigate the cases involving
cognizable offences and where the complaint
discloses a cognizable offence requiring
investigation by the police, the burden should
not routinely be shifted on the complainant.
This is more for the reason that there exists a
vital societal interest in the investigation and
prosecution of crime and the State has a
fundamental and inalienable duty in this
regard.

29. In the facts of the present case, the
courts below have taken notice of the fact that
civil and criminal litigation was pending
between the parties and the applicant had full
knowledge of the facts and also the material
evidence in respect of the case and
accordingly
the
order passed
by
the
Magistrate while exercising discretionary
powers under Section 156(3) of the Code and
directing the registration of the case as
complaint case and also its affirmation by the
revisional court cannot be said to suffer from
any
material
illegality
or
procedural
irregularity so as to warrant interference.

30. Having regard to the aforesaid, this
Court is not inclined to exercise its inherent
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code.

31. The present application stands
accordingly dismissed.
----------
(2021)08ILR A651
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.08.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 6826 of 2021

Sanjay Singh & Anr. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties
652 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Counsel for the Applicants:
Gajala Srivasatava, Sri Manish

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

A.
Criminal
Law-Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,1973-Section 482 - Indian
Penal Code,1860-Sections 323,504,506
& SC/ST Act,1989-Section 3(1) (r) &
3(1)(s)-quashing of summoning orderthe allegations in the complaint have
been found to be corroborated in the
statement made on oath u/s 200 and
also
during
inquiry
made
by
the
Magistrate u/s 202-Trial court justified
in issuing process u/s 204 as the same
has
been
passed
taking
into
consideration the available material on
record-At this stage, the Magistrate had
only to decide whether sufficient ground
exists or not for further proceeding in
the matter.(Para 1 to 13)

The application is dismissed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

1. S.W. Palanitkar & ors .Vs St. of Bih. & anr.
(2002) 1 SCC 241

2. Nirmaljit Singh Hoon Vs St. of of W.B. &
anr.(1973) 3 SCC 753

3. Chandra Deo Singh Vs Prokash Chandra
Bose(1964) 1 SCR 639

4. Smt. Nagawwa Vs Veeranna Shivalingappa
Konjalgi & ors. (1976) 3 SCC 736

5. Nupur Talwar Vs CBI & anr. (2012) 11 SCC
465

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra
Kumar Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard Sri Manish, learned counsel
for the applicants and Sri Pankaj Saxena,
learned Additional Government Advocate-I
appearing for the State-opposite party.

2. The present application under
section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking
to quash the summoning order dated
05.12.2020 in Complaint Case No.151 of
2019 (Ramkewal v. Sanjay), under sections
323, 504 and 506 Indian Penal Code and
sections 3(1) (r) and 3(1) (s) Scheduled
Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989, P.S. Kerakat, District
Jaunpur, pending before Special Judge
(SC/ST Act), Jaunpur.

3 . Learned counsel for the applicants
has sought to assail the summoning order
principally by contending that the statement
of the complainant recorded by the
Magistrate under section 200 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 19731 is not in
conformity with the allegations made in the
complaint. Further, he has sought to refer to
the factual aspects of the matter and the
defence, which is to be set up by the
applicants.

4. On a specific query as to what are
the contradictions between the statement
under section 200 of the Code and the
complaint, apart from referring to certain
factual details, counsel for the applicants
has not been able to point out anything
specific.

5. Learned Additional Government
Advocate-I points out that the statements of
the witnesses, namely, PW1 and PW2
recorded before the Magistrate during the
course of inquiry under section 202 of the
Code contain complete particulars and fully
corroborate the allegations made in the
complaint. It is submitted that the statement
of the complainant under section 200 also
cannot be said to be contradictory to the
complaint version. Further contention is
that upon a consideration of the material on
record the offences referred to in the
8 All. Sanjay Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
653
summoning order are made out and as such
the order dated 05.12.2020, in terms of
which the applicants have been summoned,
cannot be said to be in any manner
erroneous.

6. In order to advert to the rival
contentions the provisions relating to the
procedure to be followed by the Magistrate
upon taking cognizance of an offence on
complaint under sections 200 and 202 of
the Code upto the stage of issuance of
process under section 204 of the Code, are
required to be referred to. The provisions
contained under sections 200, 202 and 204
of the Code are being extracted below:-

"200.
Examination
of
complainant.--
A
Magistrate
taking
cognizance of an offence on complaint
shall examine upon oath the complainant
and the witnesses present, if any, and the
substance of such examination shall be
reduced to writing and shall be signed by
the complainant and the witnesses, and also
by the Magistrate:

Provided
that,
when
the
complaint
is
made
in
writing,
the
Magistrate
need
not
examine
the
complainant and the witnesses-

(a) if a public servant acting or-
purporting to act in the discharge of his
official duties or a Court has made the
complaint; or

(b) if the Magistrate makes over
the case for inquiry or trial to another
Magistrate under section 192:

Provided further that if the
Magistrate makes over the case to another
Magistrate
under
section
192
after
examining
the
complainant
and
the
witnesses, the latter Magistrate need not re-
examine them.

202. Postponement of issue of
process.--(1) Any Magistrate, on receipt of a
complaint of an offence of which he is
authorised 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 exercises 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.

(2) In an inquiry under sub- section
(1), the Magistrate may, if he thinks fit, take
evidence of witnesses on oath:

Provided that if it appears to the
Magistrate that the offence complained of is
triable exclusively by the Court of Session, he
shall call upon the complainant to produce all
his witnesses and examine them on oath.

(3) If an investigation under sub-
section (1) is made by a person not being a
police officer, he shall have for that
654 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
investigation all the powers conferred by
this Code on an officer- in- charge of a
police station except the power to arrest
without warrant.

204. Issue of process.--(1)If in
the
opinion
of
a
Magistrate
taking
cognizance of an offence there is sufficient
ground for proceeding, and the case
appears to be-

(a) a summons- case, he shall
issue his summons for the attendance of
the accused, or

(b) a warrant- case, he may
issue a warrant, or, if he thinks fit, a
summons, for causing the accused to be
brought or to appear at a certain time
before such Magistrate or (if he has no
jurisdiction
himself)
some
other
Magistrate having jurisdiction.

(2) No summons or warrant
shall be issued against the accused under
sub- section (1) until a list of the
prosecution witnesses has been filed.

(3) In a proceeding instituted
upon a complaint made in writing every
summons or warrant issued under sub-
section (1) shall be accompanied by a
copy of such complaint.

(4) When by any law for the
time being in force any process- fees or
other fees are payable, no process shall
be issued until the fees are paid and, if
such fees are not paid within a reasonable
time, the Magistrate may dismiss the
complaint.

(5) Nothing in this section shall
be deemed to affect the provisions of
section 87."

7. Section 200 provides that the
Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence
on a complaint shall examine upon oath the
complainant and the witnesses present, if
any, and that the substance of such
examination shall be reduced to writing and
shall be signed by the complainant and the
witnesses, and also by the Magistrate. The
object of such examination is with a view
to ascertain whether there is a prima facie
case against the person accused of the
offence in the complaint, and to prevent the
issue of process on a complaint which is
either false or vexatious or intended only to
harass such person.

8. The object of section 202 is to
enable the Magistrate to form an opinion as
to whether the process is to be issued or
not. The purpose of the investigation to be
directed under this section is to help the
Magistrate in arriving at a decision as to the
issuance of process. The broad based
inquiry by the Magistrate, as contemplated
under this section, is with a view to enable
him to arrive at a decision as to whether he
should dismiss the complaint or whether he
should proceed to issue process upon the
complaint.

9. The provisions contained under
sections 200, 202 and 204 and the degree of
satisfaction required to be recorded at this
stage by the Magistrate was subject matter
of consideration in S.W. Palanitkar and
Others v. State of Bihar and Another2
and it was held that test which was required
to be applied was whether there is
"sufficient ground for proceeding" and not
whether there is "sufficient ground for
conviction".
Referring
to
the
earlier
decisions in the case of Nirmaljit Singh
Hoon v. State of West Bengal and
Another3,
Chandra
Deo
Singh
v.
Prokash Chandra Bose4, and Smt.
8 All. Sanjay Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
655
Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa
Konjalgi and Others5, it was stated that
the scope of inquiry under section 202 is
limited only to the ascertainment of the
truth or falsehood of the allegations made
in the complaint (i) on the material placed
by the complainant before the court; (ii) for
the limited purpose of finding out whether
a prima facie case for issue of process has
been made out; (iii) for deciding the
question purely from the point of view of
the complainant without at all adverting to
any defence that the accused may have.
The observations made in the judgment in
this regard are as follows:

"15. In case of a complaint under
Section 200 Cr.P.C. or IPC a Magistrate
can take cognizance of the offence made
out
and
then
has
to
examine
the
complainant and his witnesses, if any, to
ascertain whether a prima facie case is
made out against the accused to issue
process so that the issue of process is
prevented on a complaint which is either
false or vexatious or intended only to
harass. Such examination is provided in
order to find out whether there is or not
sufficient ground for proceeding. The
words "sufficient ground", used under
Section 203 have to be construed to mean
the satisfaction that a prima facie case is
made out against the accused and not
sufficient ground for the purpose of
conviction.

16. This Court in Nirmaljit Singh
Hoon v. The State of West Bengal, (1973)
3 SCC 753 in para 22, referring to scheme
of Sections 200-203 of Cr. P.C. has
explained that :

"The section does not say that a
regular trial of adjudging truth or otherwise
of the person complained against should
take place at that stage, for, such a person
can be called upon to answer the accusation
made against him only when a process has
been issued and he is on trial. Section 203
consists of two parts. The first part lays
down the materials which the Magistrate
must consider, and the second part says that
if after considering those materials there is
in his judgment no sufficient ground for
proceeding, he may dismiss the complaint.
In Chandra Deo Singh v. Prokash Chandra
Bose, [1964] 1 SCR 639, where dismissal
of a complaint by the Magistrate at the
stage of Section 202 inquiry was set aside,
this Court laid down that the test was
whether there was sufficient ground for
proceeding and not whether there was
sufficient ground for conviction, and
observed (p. 653) that where there was
prima facie evidence, even though the
person charged of an offence in the
complaint might have a defence, the matter
had to be left to be decided by the
appropriate forum at the appropriate stage
and issue of a process could not be refused.
Unless, therefore, the Magistrate finds that
the evidence led before him is selfcontradictory,
or
intrinsically
untrustworthy, process cannot be refused if
that evidence makes out a prima facie
case."

17. In Nagawwa v. Veeranna
Shivalingappa Konjalgi, (1976) 3 SCC 736,
this Court dealing with the scope of inquiry
under Section 202 has stated that it is
extremely limited only to the ascertainment
of the truth or falsehood of the allegations
made in the complaint (a) on the materials
placed by the complainant before the court;
(b) for the limited purpose of finding out
whether a prima facie case for issue of
process has been made out; (c) for deciding
the question purely from the point of view
of the complainant without at all adverting
656 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
to any defence that the accused may have.
It is also indicated by way of illustration in
which cases an order of the Magistrate
issuing process can be quashed on such
case being

"where the allegations made in
the 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."(SCC p. 741,
para 5)."

10. The sufficiency of the material
and the test to be applied at the stage of
issue of process again came up for
consideration in the case of Nupur
Talwar
v.
Central
Bureau
of
Investigation and Another6 and it was
reiterated that the limited purpose of
consideration of material at the stage of
issuing
process
being
tentative
as
distinguished from the actual evidence
produced during trial, the test to be
applied at the stage was whether the
material placed before the Magistrate was
"sufficient for proceeding against the
accused" and not "sufficient to prove and
establish the guilt". Referring to the
earlier authorities on the point it was
observed as follows :

"37. The criterion which need to
be kept in mind by a Magistrate issuing
process, have been repeatedly delineated by
this Court. I shall therefore, first examine
the declared position of law on the subject.
Reference in this behalf may be made to
the decision rendered by this Court in
Chandra Deo Singh vs. Prokash Chandra
Bose, AIR 1963 SC 1430, wherein it was
observed as under : (AIR p. 1433, para 8)

"(8) Coming to the second
ground, we have no hesitation is holding
that the test propounded by the learned
single judge of the High Court is wholly
wrong. For determining the question
whether any process is to be issued or not,
what the Magistrate has to be satisfied is
whether there is 'sufficient ground for
proceeding' and not whether there is
sufficient ground for conviction. Whether
the evidence is adequate for supporting the
conviction can be determined only at the
trial and not at the stage of enquiry. A
number of decisions were cited at the bar in
which the question of the scope of the
enquiry under Section 202 has been
considered. Amongst those decisions are :
Parmanand Brahmachari v. Emperor, AIR
1930 Pat 30; Radha Kishun Sao v. S.K.
Misra, AIR 1949 Pat 36; Ramkisto Sahu v.
State of Bihar, AIR 1952 Pat 125; Emperor
v. J.A. Finan, AIR 1931 Bom 524 and
Baidya Nath Singh v. Muspratt, ILR (1887)
14 Cal 141. In all these cases, it has been
held that the object of the provisions of
Section 202 is to enable the Magistrate to
form an opinion as to whether process
should be issued or not and to remove from
his mind any hesitation that he may have
felt upon the mere perusal of the complaint
and the consideration of the complainant's
evidence on oath. The courts have also
pointed out in these cases that what the
Magistrate has to see is whether there is
evidence in support of the allegations of the
complainant and not whether the evidence
is sufficient to warrant a conviction. The
learned Judges in some of these cases have
been at pains to observe that an enquiry
under Section 202 is not to be likened to a
trial which can only take place after process
is issued, and that there can be only one
trial. No doubt, as stated in sub-section (1)
of Section 202 itself, the object of the
enquiry is to ascertain the truth or
8 All. Sanjay Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
657
falsehood of the complaint, but the
Magistrate making the enquiry has to do
this only with reference to the intrinsic
quality of the statements made before him
at the enquiry which would naturally mean
the complaint itself, the statement on oath
made
by
the
complainant
and
the
statements made before him by persons
examined
at
the
instance
of
the
complainant." (emphasis supplied).

xxx

39. The same issue was examined
by this Court in Jagdish Ram vs. State of
Rajasthan and Anr., (2004) 4 SCC 432,
wherein this Court held as under: (SCC p.
436, para 10)

"(10) The contention urged is that
though the trial court was directed to
consider the entire material on record
including the final report before deciding
whether the process should be issued
against the appellant or not, yet the entire
material was not considered. From perusal
of order passed by the Magistrate it cannot
be said that the entire material was not
taken into consideration. The order passed
by the Magistrate taking cognizance is a
well-written order. The order not only
refers to the statements recorded by the
police during investigation which led to the
filing of final report by the police and the
statements of witnesses recorded by the
Magistrate under Sections 200 and 202 of
the Code but also sets out with clarity the
principles required to be kept in mind at the
stage of taking cognizance and reaching a
prima facie view. At this stage, the
Magistrate had only to decide whether
sufficient ground exists or not for further
proceeding in the matter. It is well settled
that notwithstanding the opinion of the
police, a Magistrate is empowered to take
cognizance if the material on record makes
out a case for the said purpose. The
investigation is the exclusive domain of the
police. The taking of cognizance of the
offence is an area exclusively within the
domain of a Magistrate. At this stage, the
Magistrate has to be satisfied whether there
is sufficient ground for proceeding and not
whether there is sufficient ground for
conviction.
Whether
the
evidence
is
adequate for supporting the conviction, can
be determined only at the trial and not at
the stage of inquiry. At the stage of issuing
the process to the accused, the Magistrate is
not required to record reasons.(Chief
Controller of Imports and Exports v.
Roshanlal Agarwal)"

 (emphasis supplied)

All
along
having
made
a
reference to the words "there is sufficient
ground to proceed" it has been held by this
Court, that for the purpose of issuing
process, all that the concerned Court has to
determine is, whether the material placed
before it "is sufficient for proceeding
against the accused"? The observations
recorded by this Court extracted above,
further enunciate, that the term "sufficient
to proceed" is different and distinct from
the
term
"sufficient
to
prove
and
established guilt".

11. In the facts of the present case, the
allegations in the complaint have been
found to be corroborated in the statement
made on oath by the complainant during
the course of examination under section
200 and also during inquiry made by the
Magistrate under section 202. The order
dated 05.12.2020 passed by the Trial Judge
issuing process reflects that the same has
been passed taking into consideration the
available material on record. The order has
658 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
referred to the statements under sections
200 and 202 and also the fact that the
statements recorded therein support the
allegations made in the complaint.

12. The law on the point being well
settled that at the stage of issue of process
the opinion which is required to be
recorded
by
the
magistrate
taking
cognizance of the offence is that there is
sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused, the order passed by the court
below summoning the applicants does not
suffer from any infirmity, so as to call for
interference.

13. The application thus fails and is
accordingly dismissed.
----------
(2021)08ILR A658
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.07.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 8512 of 2021

Rohit Bhati @ Rohit Pratap Singh & Ors.
 ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Abhishek Tiwari

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A., Sri Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh

A.
Criminal
Law-Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,1973-Section
482
-
Indian
Penal Code,1860-Sections 498-A, 323,
504, 506 & Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961Section 3⁄4 -quashing of entire criminal
proceeding-parties
having
decided
to
settle
the
matter
amicably
amongst
themselves, no useful purpose would be
served
in
continuing
with
the
proceedings-High Court is empowered to
quash criminal proceedings of FIR or
complaint in exercise of its inherent
power, in case the parties have arrived at
settlement
agreement
of
their
matrimonial disputes, and Section 320
Cr.P.C. does not limit or affect the powers
u/s 482.(Para 1 to 12)

B. High Court may quash proceedings if in
its view, because of compromise between
the offender and victim, the possibility of
conviction is remote and bleak and
continuation of criminal case would put
accused to great oppression and prejudice
and extreme injustice would be caused to
him by not quashing the criminal case
despite full and complete settlement and
compromise with the victim.The criminal
cases having predominatingly civil flavour
stand on different footing for the purpose
of quashing, particulary the offences
arising
from
commercial,
financial,
mercantile,
civil
partnership
or
the
offences arising out of matrimonial or
family disputes where the wrong is
basically private or personal nature and
the parties have resolved their entire
dispute.(Para 5 to7)

The application is allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

1. State Vs Rahit Bhati & ors.

2. B.S. Joshi Vs St. of Haryana & ors. (2003) 46
ACC Page 779 SC

3. Nikhil Merchant Vs C.B.I.(2008) 9 SCC 677

4. Gian Singh Vs St. of Punj. & anr .(2012) 10
SCC 303

5. Narinder Singh Vs. St. of Punj. & anr.(2014) 6
SCC 466

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra
Kumar Srivastava, J.)