# Shavez S/o Naseemul Hasan & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2020) 11 ILRA 106
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-11-05
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 38936 of 2019
- **Bench:** Karuna Nand Bajpayee
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shavez-s-o-naseemul-hasan-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-44979
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

(A) Criminal law - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Section 147, 148, 149, 308, 323,
325, 336, 452, 504, 506 - Code of criminal
procedure, 1973 - Section 155(2) - No
police officer shall investigate a noncognizable case without the order of a
magistrate having power to try such case
or commit the case for trial - Conversion
of N.C.R. into F.I.R. during investigation
after finding the fact that the accused
persons had caused serious injuries to
victim
and
had
thereby
committed
cognizable offence, is neither illegal nor
impermissible .Para - 11

(B) Law regarding sufficiency of material -
justify the summoning of accused - also
the court's decision to proceed against
him in a given case - court has to eschew
itself from embarking upon a roving
enquiry into the last details of the case -
Not advisable to adjudge whether the
case shall ultimately end in conviction or
not - Only a prima facie satisfaction of the
court about the existence of sufficient
ground to proceed in the matter is
required.Para - 5

An application under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. -
before the court below for investigation in
pursuance of the allegations made in the N.C.R.
- allowed by the Magistrate concerned - S.H.O.
concerned was directed to investigate the case
- present case - neither two FIRs nor different
charge-sheets filed against the applicants for
the same cause of action - Only one police
report report i.e. charge sheet submitted by the
11 All. Shavez S/o Naseemul Hasan & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
107
police in the present case upon which the
Magistrate had taken cognizance.Para - 9,11

HELD:- The perusal of the F.I.R. and the
material collected by the Investigating Officer
on the basis of which the charge sheet has been
submitted makes out a prima facie case against
the accused at this stage and there appear to
be sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused. No justification to quash the charge
sheet or the proceedings against the applicants
arising out of them.Para - 12

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed.
(E -7)

List of Cases Cited:-

## Text

106 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
by the learned counsel on behalf of his
client i.e. the applicant herein cannot be
accepted by this Court. A conduct which
abuses and makes a mockery of the judicial
process of the court is to be dealt with iron
hands and no person can tinker with it to
prevent, prejudice, obstruct or interfere
with the administration of justice.

12. The prayer for quashing or setting
aside the impugned orders as well as the
entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal
case is refused as I do not see any illegality,
impropriety and incorrectness in the
impugned orders or the proceedings under
challenge. There is absolutely no abuse of
court's process perceptible in the same. The
present matter also does not fall in any of
the categories recognized by the Supreme
Court which might justify interference by
this Court in order to upset or quash them.

13. In view of the aforesaid the
present application is dismissed with
exemplary cost of Rs. 15,000/- (Fifteen
thousand rupees only). The said cost shall
be deposited by the applicant by way of a
bank draft in the name of Registrar General
of this Court within one month from today.
In case the applicant does not deposit the
same within the time provided the same
shall
be
recovered
by
the
District
Magistrate, Ghaziabad from her arrears of
land revenue. On deposit of Rs. 15,000/-
the Registrar General shall transmit to the
concerned account for the use of poor
clients, who do not bear to file their case
before this Court.
----------

(2020)11ILR A106
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.11.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 38936 of 2019

Shavez S/o Naseemul Hasan & Ors.
 ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Mehdi Abbas

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

(A) Criminal law - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Section 147, 148, 149, 308, 323,
325, 336, 452, 504, 506 - Code of criminal
procedure, 1973 - Section 155(2) - No
police officer shall investigate a noncognizable case without the order of a
magistrate having power to try such case
or commit the case for trial - Conversion
of N.C.R. into F.I.R. during investigation
after finding the fact that the accused
persons had caused serious injuries to
victim
and
had
thereby
committed
cognizable offence, is neither illegal nor
impermissible .Para - 11

(B) Law regarding sufficiency of material -
justify the summoning of accused - also
the court's decision to proceed against
him in a given case - court has to eschew
itself from embarking upon a roving
enquiry into the last details of the case -
Not advisable to adjudge whether the
case shall ultimately end in conviction or
not - Only a prima facie satisfaction of the
court about the existence of sufficient
ground to proceed in the matter is
required.Para - 5

An application under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. -
before the court below for investigation in
pursuance of the allegations made in the N.C.R.
- allowed by the Magistrate concerned - S.H.O.
concerned was directed to investigate the case
- present case - neither two FIRs nor different
charge-sheets filed against the applicants for
the same cause of action - Only one police
report report i.e. charge sheet submitted by the
11 All. Shavez S/o Naseemul Hasan & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
107
police in the present case upon which the
Magistrate had taken cognizance.Para - 9,11

HELD:- The perusal of the F.I.R. and the
material collected by the Investigating Officer
on the basis of which the charge sheet has been
submitted makes out a prima facie case against
the accused at this stage and there appear to
be sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused. No justification to quash the charge
sheet or the proceedings against the applicants
arising out of them.Para - 12

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed.
(E -7)

List of Cases Cited:-

1. Chandra Deo Singh Vs Prokash Chandra Bose
, AIR 1963 SC 1430

2.
Vadilal
Panchal
Vs
Dattatraya
Dulaji
Ghadigaonker , AIR 1960 SC 1113

3. Smt. Nagawwa Vs Veeranna Shivalingappa
Konjalgi , (1976) 3 SCC 736

4. R.P. Kapur Vs St. of Pun., AIR 1960 SC 866

5. St. of Hary. Vs Bhajan Lal , (1992) SCC(Cr.)
426

6. Smt. Nagawwa Vs Veeranna Shivalingappa
Konjalgi , (1976) 3 SCC 736

7. T.T. Antony Vs St. of Ker. , (2001) 6 SCC 181

8. Amit Bhai Anil Chandra Shah Vs C.B.I. & anr.,
(2013) 6 SCC 348 and 2013 Law Suit (SC) 291

(Delivered by Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee, J.)

1. This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has
been filed seeking the quashing of charge
sheet dated 22.05.2019 as well as the entire
proceedings of Case No.1181 of 2019
arising out of Case Crime No. 163 of 2018,
u/s 147, 148, 149, 308, 323, 325, 336, 452,
504, 506 I.P.C., P.S.- Jarcha, District-
Gautam Budh Nagar, pending in the Court
of A.C.J.M., Ist, Gautam Budh Nagar.

2. Heard applicants' counsel and
learned AGA.

3. Entire record has been perused.

4. Submission of learned counsel for
the applicants is that initially an N.C.R.
was lodged by the opposite party no.2
against them in which by virtue of order of
Magistrate passed under Section 155(2)
Cr.P.C. the investigation had taken place.
Thereafter, the first informant had lodged
an F.I.R. against them with the same
allegation in which investigation again took
place which resulted in submission of
charge
sheet
in
the
present
case.
Submission
is
that
registration
of
subsequent F.I.R. for the same occurrence
against the same accused persons was not
permissible in the eyes of law and if
criminal proceedings were allowed to
proceed on the basis of charge sheet so
submitted, it will amount to abuse of
process of law. Further submission is that
investigation of F.I.R. which was registered
as Case Crime No. 163 of 2008, was in fact
re-investigation,
which
was
also
not
permissible. Other contentions have also
been raised by the applicants' counsel but
all of them relate to disputed questions of
fact. The court has also been called upon to
adjudge
the
testimonial
worth
of
prosecution evidence and evaluate the same
on the basis of various intricacies of factual
details which have been touched upon by
the learned counsel. The veracity and
credibility of material furnished on behalf
of the prosecution has been questioned and
false implication has been pleaded.

5. So far as the law regarding
sufficiency of material which may justify
the summoning of accused and also the
court's decision to proceed against him in a
given case is concerned, the same is well
108 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
settled. The court has to eschew itself from
embarking upon a roving enquiry into the
last details of the case. It is also not
advisable to adjudge whether the case shall
ultimately end in conviction or not. Only a
prima facie satisfaction of the court about
the existence of sufficient ground to
proceed in the matter is required.

6. Through a catena of decisions
given by Hon'ble Apex Court this legal
aspect has been expatiated upon at length
and the law that has evolved over a period
of several decades is too well settled. The
cases of (1) Chandra Deo Singh Vs.
Prokash Chandra Bose AIR 1963 SC 1430
, (2) Vadilal Panchal Vs. Dattatraya Dulaji
Ghadigaonker AIR 1960 SC 1113 and (3)
Smt.
Nagawwa
Vs.
Veeranna
Shivalingappa Konjalgi 1976 3 SCC 736
may be usefully referred to in this regard.

7. The Apex Court decisions given in
the case of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab
AIR 1960 SC 866 and in the case of State of
Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 SCC(Cr.)
426 have also recognized certain categories
by way of illustration which may justify the
quashing of a complaint or charge sheet.
Some of them are akin to the illustrative
examples given in the above referred case of
Smt.
Nagawwa
Vs.
Veeranna
Shivalingappa Konjalgi 1976 3 SCC 736.
The cases where the allegations made against
the accused or the evidence collected by the
Investigating Officer do not constitute any
offence or where the allegations are absurd or
extremely improbable impossible to believe
or where prosecution is legally barred or
where criminal proceeding is malicious and
malafide instituted with ulterior motive of
grudge and vengeance alone may be the fit
cases for the High Court in which the
criminal proceedings may be quashed.
Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhajan Lal's case has
recognized certain categories in which
Section-482 of Cr.P.C. or Article-226 of the
Constitution may be successfully invoked.

8. Illumined by the case law referred to
herein above, this Court has adverted to the
entire record of the case.

9. A perusal of the record of the
present case shows that on 1.7.2018 an
N.C.R. No. 98 of 2018 was lodged by the
opposite party no. 2 against the applicants
and co-accused Rihan under Sections 323,
504, 506 I.P.C. As per N.C.R. version on
30.6.2018
the
accused
persons
had
threatened the first informant and others
and had made an assault upon them and
had also abused them. As per N.C.R. five
persons namely Mahtab Ali, Kamal, Hasin
Abbas, Aftab and Kr. Zeba had sustained
injuries. It seems that the opposite party
no.2 had filed an application under Section
155(2) Cr.P.C. before the court below for
investigation
in
pursuance
of
the
allegations made in the N.C.R. which was
allowed by the Magistrate concerned vide
order dated 12.7.2018 and the S.H.O.
concerned was directed to investigate the
case. The investigation commenced and the
Investigating
Officer
had
recorded
statement of the first informant on
19.7.2018. The applicants and the coaccused Rihan had obtained bail in N.C.R.
No. 98 of 2018, under Sections 323, 504,
506 I.P.C. on 19.7.2018. The statement of
some of the injured persons were also
recorded by the investigating officer on
21.7.2018 and 11.8.2018. On the other
hand, the injured persons were medically
examined and it was found that the injured
Kamal had sustained a fracture of frontal
bone in the said assault. There was fracture
found on left clavical of injured Hasin
Abbas. The injuries of Aftab was also
found grievous in nature.
11 All. Shavez S/o Naseemul Hasan & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
109

10. A perusal of purcha no. 7 of case
diary, photocopy of which has been
annexed as annexure no. 10 to the present
affidavit, shows that on the basis of medical
evidence Sections 325 and 308 I.P.C. were
added and N.C.R. No. 98 of 2018, was
accordingly converted into Case Crime No.
163 of 2018, under Sections 323/325, 504,
506, 308 I.P.C. It has also been mentioned
that
further
investigation
would
be
conducted for the offences punishable
under Sections 323, 325, 504, 506, 308
I.P.C. However, it seems that on the basis
of the earlier application which was given
by the first informant for lodging of his
N.C.R. a fresh Check F.I.R. was again
executed by the police at P.S. Jarcha,
District Gautam Budh Nagar and a separate
crime no./F.I.R. No. 163 of 2018 was
assigned to it. In this Check F.I.R. sections
were mentioned as 308, 323, 325, 504, 506
I.P.C. Thereafter the investigating officer
proceeded with the investigation of the
present case and recorded statement of
witnesses including that of injured persons
as their second statement (Majid Bayan).
Ultimately on the basis of material
collected
during
investigation
which
includes
the
medical
reports,
the
investigating officer had submitted charge
sheet against the applicants and some other
co-accused
persons
for
the
offence
punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149,
308, 323, 325,336, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C. A
perusal of F.I.R. No. 163 of 2018 would
reveal that it was verbatim the same as the
contents of N.C.R. No. 98 of 2018. In fact,
it is fallacious to state that investigation
with respect to N.C.R. No. 98 of 2018 was
dropped and de-novo investigation was
started as is clear from annexure no. 10
showing that during investigation upon the
N.C.R. the investigating officer had found
that the acts of the applicants did constitute
some cognizable offences. Therefore, the
said N.C.R. was converted into present
F.I.R.
Investigation
thereafter
was
conducted by the then investigating officer
as subsequent investigation. Applicants had
not faced two investigations or two
different court proceedings for the same
cause of action. Preparation of new CheckReport was although not much needed as
without it also, a charge sheet for
committing cognizable offences could or
would have been submitted by the
investigating officer. It could also have
been just sufficient to alter the case from
non-cognizable offence into cognizable
offence and make an entry to the same
effect in the G.D. of police station. Issuance
of or executing a fresh or new or further
Check-Report was simply a superfluous
exercise. But merely the fact that a new
crime number was assigned and a Check
F.I.R.
was
also
executed,
does
not
necessarily adversely affect the proceedings
in any vital manner nor the applicants can
claim that they have been prejudiced by
this act. The F.I.R. of case crime no. 163 of
2018, was not a second F.I.R. rather it was
a conversion of earlier N.C.R. No. 98 of
2018 into a cognizable report. Even the
investigation which was conducted in
pursuance of N.C.R. No. 98 of 2018, got
merged in the subsequent investigation of
the present case and it remained a
continued process which is neither illegal
nor can be termed as any kind of abuse of
process of law.

11. Learned counsel for the applicants
had placed reliance upon the judgement of
Hon'ble Apex Court given in T.T. Antony
vs. State of Kerala (2001) 6 Supreme
Court Cases 181 in support of his
contention. In aforesaid case initially two
different FIRs were lodged as case crime
nos.353 of 1994 and 354 of 1994 at police
station Kuthuparamba by different police
110 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
authorities regarding the incidents which
took place on 25.11.1994 in which some
persons had lost their lives while the
investigation on the basis of two FIRs were
still pending on the basis of a report of an
inquiry commission, the superior police
authorities had directed to take legal action
against those responsible for firing without
justification as a result of which people
were killed. As were directed, the officer in
charge
of
concerned
police
station
registered another FIR as case crime no.268
of 1997 at police station Kuthuparamba.
After registration of this FIR as case crime
no.268 of 1997, earlier FIRs i.e. case crime
nos.353 and 354 of 1994 were closed
sometimes in April, 1999 and June 1999. It
is clear from T.T. Antony's case (supra) that
different FIRs were lodged by different first
informants and the Hon'ble Apex Court was
of the opinion that in truth and substance
the essence of the two FIRs were same and
therefore lodging of the second FIR was
unwarranted and illegal. It was found by
Hon'ble Apex Court that the FIRs in case
crime nos.353 and 354 of 1994 on one hand
and the FIR in case crime no.268 of 1997
on the other hand disclosed that the date
and place of occurrence were the same,
there was alluding reference to the death
caused due to firing in the FIRs in case
crime no.353 and 354 of 1994. Therefore
Hon'ble
Apex
Court
has
held
that
registration of the second FIR i.e. FIR of
case crime no.268 of 1997 registered in
police station Kuthuparamba was not valid
and the investigation consequent to it was
of no legal consequence and therefore was
accordingly quashed. However, Hon'ble
Apex Court had given permission to the
investigating agency for seeking leave of
the court in case crime nos.353 and 354 of
1994 for making further investigation and
filing of further report or reports under
section 173(8) Cr.P.C. before the competent
Magistrate in the said cases. In the present
case at hand admittedly there are no two
FIRs. The first information given by the
complainant to the concerned police station
was treated as N.C.R. as it relates to
commission of non-cognizable offences.
After
getting
permission
from
the
Magistrate
concerned
when
the
investigating officer started investigation of
the present case he found on the basis of
material collected during investigation
especially medical reports that applicant
had committed cognizable offences and
therefore the same N.C.R. was virtually
converted into FIR. Certainly, conversion
of N.C.R. into a cognizable report i.e. FIR,
on the basis of material collected during
investigation cannot be termed as illegal. At
the most it was a superfluous act and only
an entry in the G.D. showing conversion of
non cognizable offence into cognizable
offence would have very well sufficed.
Thus then case law relied upon by
applicant's counsel does not help him to
any great extent. Reliance has also been
placed by the counsel for the applicants as
well as by the counsel for the first
informant/opposite party no. 2 on the
judgement of Amit Bhai Anil Chandra
Shah Vs. C.B.I. and another, 2013
(6)SCC 348 and 2013 Law Suit (SC) 291.
In this case an FIR No.RC No.4S2010 was
lodged on 1.2.2010 the CBI conducted
investigation and submitted charge-sheet on
23.07.2010. Thereafter a supplementary
charge-sheet was also submitted by CBI on
12.10.2010. In the aforesaid charge-sheet
the investigating agency had reached to a
conclusion
that
conspiracy
to
kill
Sohrabuddin and Kausar Bi and conspiracy
to kill Tulsiram Prajapati were part of the
same transaction. Later on, the CBI had
lodged
second
FIR
being
No.RC-3
(S/2011)
Mumbai
on
29.04.2011
to
investigate the death of Tulsiram Prajapati
11 All. Shavez S/o Naseemul Hasan & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
111
who was a material witness to the killings
of Sohrabuddin and Kausar Bi. After
investigation the CBI had submitted
charge-sheet in this case also on 4.9.2012.
The second/ fresh FIR dated 29.04.2011
and
the
resultant
charge-sheet
dated
4.9.2012 was challeged before Hon'ble
Apex Court on the ground of it being
violative of fundamental rights guaranteed
under Articles 14,20 and 21 of the
Constitution. Hon'ble Apex Court had held
that filing of second FIR and fresh chargesheet was violative of fundamental rights
guaranteed under Articles 14,20 and 21 of
the Constitution of India since the same
related to alleged offence in respect of
which an FIR had already been filed and
the court had taken cognizance. Hon'ble
Apex Court found that as the killing of
Tulsiram Prajapati was the part of same
series of cognizable offences forming part
of the first FIR. Therefore filing of fresh
FIR was unwarranted and bad in the eyes
of law, therefore, Hon'ble Apex Court had
quashed the second FIR dated 29.4.2011.
However, the Apex Court had directed that
the charge-sheet filed on 4.9.2012 in
pursuance of the second FIR be treated as
supplementary charge-sheet in the first FIR.
It is clear that in the case of Amit Bhai Anil
Chandra Shah (supra) two different FIRs
were lodged, each of which resulted in
submission of different charge-sheets. In
the present case no police report u/s 173(2)
Cr.P.C.
was
filed
on
the
basis
of
investigation which was carried out in
respect of N.C.R. No.98 of 2018. During
the course of initial investigation itself the
N.C.R. was converted into FIR and
eventually only one charge-sheet was
submitted against the applicants with
regard to same occurrence. Admittedly in
the present case there are neither two FIRs
nor different charge-sheets filed against the
applicants for the same cause of action. The
factual circumstances and evocular of
events of the present case has no semblance
with Amit Shah's case and in the absence of
filing of any earlier police report the verdict
of Hon'ble Apex Court given in Amit Bhai
Anil Chandra Shah (supra) case does not
help the contentions raised by applicants
counsel at all. Admittedly, charge-sheet was
not filed by the police in N.C.R. no.98 of
2018 and therefore no question arises for
the Magistrate to take cognizance of the
same. Only one police report report i.e.
charge sheet of the present case has been
submitted by the police in the present case
upon which the Magistrate had taken
cognizance. Conversion of N.C.R. into
F.I.R. during investigation after finding the
fact that the accused persons had caused
serious injuries to victim and had thereby
committed cognizable offence, is neither
illegal nor impermissible. Investigation
done by the police in pursuance of Case
Crime No. 163 of 2018 cannot be termed as
illegal as in fact the earlier investigation
done by the investigating officer is already
part of the present case and in fact it was a
merger of two phases of investigation, one
that took place in pursuance of N.C.R. with
permission of Court and another which
took
place
after
alteration
of
noncognizable case into a cognizable one.

12. The other submissions made by
the applicants' learned counsel call for
adjudication on pure questions of fact
which may be adequately adjudicated upon
only by the trial court and while doing so
even the submissions made on points of
law can also be more appropriately gone
into by the trial court in this case. This
Court does not deem it proper, and
therefore cannot be persuaded to have a
pre-trial before the actual trial begins. A
threadbare discussion of various facts and
circumstances, as they emerge from the
112 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
allegations made against the accused, is
being purposely avoided by the Court for
the reason, lest the same might cause any
prejudice to either side during trial. But it
shall suffice to observe that the perusal of
the F.I.R. and the material collected by the
Investigating Officer on the basis of which
the charge sheet has been submitted makes
out a prima facie case against the accused
at this stage and there appear to be
sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused. I do not find any justification to
quash the charge sheet or the proceedings
against the applicants arising out of them as
the case does not fall in any of the
categories recognized by the Apex Court
which may justify their quashing.

13. The prayer for quashing the same
is refused as I do not see any abuse of the
court's process either.

14. The application therefore cannot
be allowed and stands dismissed.

15. In the last, before closing on, this
Court wants to bring on record its
unreserved admiration for the brilliant
assistance that has been rendered by
learned A.G.A. Shri Rupak Chaubey, who
during the course of argument has not only
displayed complete mastery on facts but
has also shown an equally commendable
understanding of law. His performance has
been exemplary and worth emulation by his
fellow peers.
----------
(2020)11ILR A112
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.11.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI
CHAUHAN, J.
Application U/S 482 No. 41617 of 2019

Vishnu Kumar Gupta & Anr. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Anshul Kumar Kumar Singhal

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

(A) Criminal law - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 406 -
Code of criminal procedure, 1973 -
Section 204 - Issue of process - Section
204 of the Code does not mandate the
Magistrate to explicitly state the reasons
for issuance of summons -- summoning in
criminal case is a serious matter and the
court
below
without
dwelling
into
material and visualizing the case on the
touch stone of probability should not
summon accused person to face criminal
trial .Para - 4,11

(B) Criminal law - Code of criminal
procedure, 1973 - Magistrate not required
to pass detailed reasoned order at the
time of taking cognizance on the charge
sheet - does not mean that order of
taking cognizance can be passed by filling
up the blanks on printed proforma - Court
required to apply judicial mind - even the
order of taking cognizance cannot be
passed in mechanical manner - impugned
order liable to be quashed . Para - 18

F.I.R. lodged with false and frivolous allegations
by
Block
Education
-
Additional
District
Magistrate submitted enquiry report - applicants
were indulged in raising fake bills with regard to
the vehicle services - in connivance with the
District Basic Education Officer, Hathras - F.I.R.
was lodged on the basis of the directions issued
by
the
District
Magistrate
-
applicants
summoned through a printed order - without
recording any reasons in support of satisfaction
for taking cognizance against the applicants and
merely the case, Section, date of the order and
date of the summon have been filled. Para -
3,4,5