Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Section 293 Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Examination of Expert When DNA Report Is Disputed: MP High Court Medical Evidence Trumps False Alibi: Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction In Matrimonial Murder Where Strangulation Was Masked By Post-Mortem Burning Helping Young Advocates Is Not A Favour – It Is A Need For A Better Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Section 82 Cr.P.C. | Mere Non-Appearance Does Not Ipsi Facto Establish Absconding: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Declaring Student Abroad as Proclaimed Person

Summoning of an Accused on Printed Proforma Without Assigning Any Reason Is an Abuse of Process of Law: Allahabad High Court Quashes Cognizance and Summoning Order

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has quashed the cognizance and summoning order concerning FIR No. 321/2014 under various IPC sections, including Sections 406, 323, 504, 506, 34. The order was challenged for being issued on a printed proforma without proper judicial reasoning, highlighting a crucial issue of judicial application in criminal procedures.

Facts and Issues of the Case: The applicant, Mohd. Suhail, through his counsel, contended that the order dated 11.05.2015 lacked application of judicial mind as the Magistrate had failed to mention under which sections the chargesheet had been filed and only took cognizance against a co-accused, completely omitting the applicant’s involvement at this stage. This led to harassment by the police despite the applicant not being summoned to court, thereby constituting an abuse of legal process.

Non-application of Judicial Mind: The court noted that the Magistrate’s order was passed using a printed proforma, filled in cursorily without adequate consideration of the charges against the applicant. This method was deemed contrary to the requirement of judicious scrutiny expected in judicial processes.

Legal Precedents and Principles: The judgment drew heavily on precedents which underscored the necessity of a reasoned approach in the summoning process. Cases such as Bhushan Kumar & Anr. V. State (NCT of Delhi) and others were cited where the courts held that summoning an accused is a serious judicial function that requires clear grounds based on the material presented.

Violation of Right to Fair Investigation and Trial: The decision highlighted that a fair and proper investigation is a part of the constitutional right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which includes all judicial processes. The court emphasized the importance of a magistrate’s duty to meticulously review the allegations and evidence before taking cognizance.

Decision: The Court allowed the application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., quashing the cognizance and summoning order dated 11.05.2015. It was directed that the matter be reconsidered afresh, ensuring that judicial norms and proper reasoning are applied in accordance with law and the observations of the court.

Date of Decision: 2nd April 2024

MOHD. SUHAIL Vs. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. HOME, CIVIL SECTT. LKO. AND ANOTHER

 

Latest Legal News