# Satyendra @ Maggan & Ors. Revisionists v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2015) 1 ILRA 433
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2015-04-24
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 2120 of 2007
- **Bench:** Pramod Kumar Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/satyendra-maggan-ors-revisionists-v-state-of-u-p-anr-43184
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Criminal
Revision-Summoning
ordercomplaint case-offence under section
452, 504, 506, 379 IPC-summoning
order-without
application
of
judicial
mind-without going through statements
recorded under section 202 Cr.P.C-not a
proper order under prescribed procedure
of law-quashed.
Held: Para-8
In light of this legal position I have gone
through the impugned order. A perusal of
this
order
indicates
that
learned
Magistrate had written nothing concerning
facts of the case in hand. Neither any
discussion of evidence was made, nor was
it considered as to which accused had
allegedly committed what overt act. The
accused
person
of
complaint
were
summoned for offences mentioned in that
application. I doubt whether the learned
Magistrate had actually read statements
u/ss 200, 202 CrPC or the documents of
the original file or not. No reason was
mentioned in the impugned order as to
what those documents contain, and how
they help the prosecution case. Impugned
order
clearly
lacks
the
reflection
of
application of judicial discretion or mind.
Nothing is there which may show that
learned Magistrate, before passing of the
order under challenge had considered facts
of the case and evidence or law. Therefore
it appears that, in fact, no judicial mind
was
applied
before
the
passing
of
impugned order of summoning. Such order
cannot be accepted as a proper legal
judicial order passed after following due
procedure of law.
Case Law discussed:
1998 UPCrR 118; 2002 Cri.L.J. 996; 2003 (47)
ACC 1017.

## Text

1 All] Satyendra @ Maggan & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
433
(supra) makes it clear that the proposition
that a candidate cannot be denied his
participation for selection for appointment
on a post on the basis that he is having
higher qualification, thus, cannot be
applied universally. The application of the
said principle of law would depend on the
facts and circumstances of the case.
25. In the instant case, it is not
known as to whether the incumbent, who
would be appointed on the post of TGT
(English)
teacher,
would
have
any
avenues of promotion. Even if the
promotional avenues are made available
to such TGT (English) teacher, what
would be the eligibility criteria for
promotion to the higher post is also not
known. Thus, looking to the facts of this
case, the judgment rendered by Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Mohd.
Riazul Usman Gani and ors. (supra) does
not come to the rescue of the petitioner.
26. At the cost of reiteration, it may
be stated that the fact that the respondents
have borrowed
the qualification for
appointment to the post in question on the
prescriptions made in that regard by
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, itself is
sufficient to sustain the qualification
prescribed by the respondents which has
been challenged in this writ petition.
27. It may further be observed that in
exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226
of the Constitution of India, neither the
prescription made by the respondents for
appointment to the post in question can be
set aside nor any Mandamus can be issued to
include the candidates having Post Graduate
qualification in English within the eligibility
zone. Such matters, as observed above, are in
the exclusive domain of the employer or the
Government being a policy matter.
28. For the reasons given and
discussions made above in the preceding
paragraphs, I do not find any illegality in
the impugned qualification prescribed by
the respondents for the post in question.
29. Accordingly, the writ petition is
dismissed.
30.
Before parting the case, I may,
however, observe that for consideration of
candidates
having
Post
Graduate
qualification in English for consideration of
appointment on the post of TGT (English),
since such authority lies with the employer,
it would be open to the petitioner to take up
her cause before the authority concerned by
way of making a representation. If the
petitioner
in
this
regard
makes
a
representation to the authority concerned
raising all the pleas, which may be available
to her, the same shall be considered and
decided by the authority concerned without
being influenced by any of the observations
made hereinabove.
31. There will be no order as to
costs.
--------
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.04.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
Criminal Revision No. 2120 of 2007
Satyendra @ Maggan & Ors. Revisionists
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr.
...Opp. Parties
Counsel for the Revisionist:
Hira Lal
Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
Govt. Advocate
434
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Criminal
Revision-Summoning
ordercomplaint case-offence under section
452, 504, 506, 379 IPC-summoning
order-without
application
of
judicial
mind-without going through statements
recorded under section 202 Cr.P.C-not a
proper order under prescribed procedure
of law-quashed.
Held: Para-8
In light of this legal position I have gone
through the impugned order. A perusal of
this
order
indicates
that
learned
Magistrate had written nothing concerning
facts of the case in hand. Neither any
discussion of evidence was made, nor was
it considered as to which accused had
allegedly committed what overt act. The
accused
person
of
complaint
were
summoned for offences mentioned in that
application. I doubt whether the learned
Magistrate had actually read statements
u/ss 200, 202 CrPC or the documents of
the original file or not. No reason was
mentioned in the impugned order as to
what those documents contain, and how
they help the prosecution case. Impugned
order
clearly
lacks
the
reflection
of
application of judicial discretion or mind.
Nothing is there which may show that
learned Magistrate, before passing of the
order under challenge had considered facts
of the case and evidence or law. Therefore
it appears that, in fact, no judicial mind
was
applied
before
the
passing
of
impugned order of summoning. Such order
cannot be accepted as a proper legal
judicial order passed after following due
procedure of law.
Case Law discussed:
1998 UPCrR 118; 2002 Cri.L.J. 996; 2003 (47)
ACC 1017.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Pramod Kumar
Srivastava, J.)
1. This revision has been filed
against the order dated 18-05-2007 passed
by Judicial Magistrate- Chakia, Chandauli
in criminal complaint case no. 777 / 2006
Mewa Prasad vs. Satyendra & Others, p.s.
Baburi, Chandauli.
2.
In complaint case before it, after
receiving evidences under section 200 and
202 CrPC from the complainant/ O.P. No.-2,
the Court below had passed summoning
order dated 18-05-2007 by which accused
were summoned for offences u/ss 452, 504,
56, 379 IPC. Aggrieved by this impugned
order one summoned accused persons had
preferred present revision with prayer to
quash the summoning order.
3. In ruling "M/s. Pepsi Food Ltd. &
another vs. Special Judicial Magistrate &
others,
1998
UPCrR
118"
Hon'ble
Supreme Court held :-
"Summoning of an accused in
a
criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal
law cannot be set into motion as a matter of
course. It is not that the complainant has to
bring only two witnesses to support his
allegations in the complaint to have the
criminal law set into motion. The order of the
Magistrate summoning the accused must
reflect that he has applied his mind to the
facts of the case and the law applicable
thereto. He has to examine the nature of
allegations made in the complaint and the
evidence both oral and documentary in
support thereof and would that be sufficient
for the complainant to succeed in bringing
charge home to the accused. It is not that the
Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of
recording of preliminary evidence before
summoning the accused. Magistrate had to
carefully scrutinize the evidence brought on
record and may even himself put questions to
the complainant and his witnesses to elicit
answers to find out the truthfulness of the
allegations or otherwise and then examine if
any offence is prima facie committed by all
or any of the accused."
1 All] Satyendra @ Maggan & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
435
4. In ruling "Paul George vs. State,
2002 Cri.L.J. 996" Hon'ble Supreme
Court held :-
"We feel that whatever be the
outcome of the pleas raised by the
appellant on merit, the order disposing of
the matter must indicate application of
mind to the case and some reasons be
assigned for negating or accepting such
pleas.- - - - -
5. It is true that it may depend upon
the nature of the matter which is being
dealt with by the Court and the nature of
the jurisdiction being exercised as to in
what manner the reasons may be recorded
e.g. in an order of affirmance detailed
reasons or discussion may not be
necessary but some brief indication by the
application of mind may be traceable to
affirm an order would certainly
be
required. Mere ritual of repeating the
words or language used in the provisions,
saying that no illegality, impropriety or
jurisdictional error is found in the
judgment under challenge without even a
whisper of the merits of the matter or
nature of pleas raised does not meet the
requirement of decision of a case
judicially."
6. In ruling "Chhaya William (Smt.)
& others vs. State of U.P. & another, 2003
(47) ACC 1017" this Court held :-
"I have carefully gone through the
law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court. No
doubt on one hand the enquiry conducted
under section 202 Cr.P.C. does not need
to be detailed enquiry or scrutiny of
evidence to that extent which is required
for the purposes of the trial or conviction,
but at the same time, the Court has not to
sit as a silent spectator. It must apply its
mind while passing order for the issue of
summonses under section 204(1) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure."
7. As held by superior Courts the
passing of order of summoning any
person as accused is a very important
matter,
which
initiates
criminal
proceeding against him. Such orders
cannot be passed summarily or without
applying judicial mind.
8. In light of this legal position I
have gone through the impugned order. A
perusal of this order indicates that learned
Magistrate
had
written
nothing
concerning facts of the case in hand.
Neither any discussion of evidence was
made, nor was it considered as to which
accused had allegedly committed what
overt
act.
The
accused
person
of
complaint were summoned for offences
mentioned in that application. I doubt
whether the learned Magistrate had
actually read statements u/ss 200, 202
CrPC or the documents of the original file
or not. No reason was mentioned in the
impugned order as to what those
documents contain, and how they help the
prosecution case. Impugned order clearly
lacks the reflection of application of
judicial discretion or mind. Nothing is
there which may show that learned
Magistrate, before passing of the order
under challenge had considered facts of
the case and evidence or law. Therefore it
appears that, in fact, no judicial mind was
applied before the passing of impugned
order of summoning. Such order cannot
be accepted as a proper legal judicial
order
passed
after
following
due
procedure of law.
9. Therefore impugned order is
quashed. Revision, accordingly, succeeds.
436
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
The case is remanded back to trial Court
with direction to afford complainant the
opportunity of hearing and pass afresh the
speaking order on point of summoning in
light of points discussed in the body of
judgment.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 07.04.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. DEVENDRA KUMAR ARORA, J.
Service Single No. 2532 of 2014
Virendra Kumar Srivastava & Anr.
Petitioners
Versus
The Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad
...Respondent
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Noorul Hasnain Khan, Mohan Singh
Counsel for the Respondent:
Manish
Kumar,
Gaurav
Mehrotra,
Surendra Kumar Shukla
Provident Fund (U.P.) Rules, 1985, Rule5 read with U.P. Retirement Benefit
Rules
1961-Rule
5(2)-Right
and
obligation
of
nominee-deceased
employee
ignoring
his
wife
and
daughter-in service record-shown 'niece'
as nominee-contrary to provisions of
Rules 5(2)-nominee not entitled for any
benefit.
Held: Para-19
As far as the appointment under Dying in
Harness
Rules
is
concerned,
it
is
established from the documents brought
on record by the official respondents
that Smt. Vinita Srivastava and Km.
Shilpi Srivastava are the wife and
daughter of the deceased. Furthermore,
the petitioner do not fall within the
definition of "family" under the 1974
Rules. Therefore, the action of the
official respondents cannot be said to be
unreasonable or legally unjustified.
Case Law discussed:
2004 Vol. 106 (4) Bombay; 2011 (2) AWC
1576 (SC)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Devendra
Kumar Arora, J.)
1. Heard learned counsel for parties
and perused the record.
2. By means of present writ petition,
petitioners have inter-alia prayed for a
writ
in
the
nature
of
mandamus
commanding the respondents to make
payment of the post death benefits of Late
Arvind Nath Srivastava together with
12% interest and to consider the petitioner
no. 1 for appointment under Dying in
Harness Rules, 1974.
3. Submission of learned counsel for
the petitioners is that Late Arvind Nath
Srivastava was a peon in High Court,
Lucknow Bench, Lucknow who died on
26.5.2013 during service tenure. It has
been averred in the writ petition that since
the relations between Late Arvind Nath
Srivastava and opposite parties no. 3 & 4
( wife and daughter of deceased) were
strained and litigation were also going on
between them, the deceased had deprived
them from being nominee in the service
record and he was looked after by
petitioner no. 1. As the petitioner no. 1,
Virendra Kumar Srivastava was male
nominee in service record by the deceased
he made an application to the Senior
Registrar (opposite party no. 2) for
payment of post death benefits of Late
Arvind Nath Srivastava in their favour.
On this application, the Joint Registrar
(Accounts) of the Court vide letter dated