2012 (4) TMI 746 - SC - Indian Laws

Challenging the summon order passed by Magistrate - the present cases pertain to a property dispute regarding distribution of the assets left behind (of T- Series fame), a handwritten note was executed between the appellants and Respondent No. 2 wherein distribution of certain assets and shares in different companies was provided for. Subsequently, a fresh agreement was entered into between the appellants and the Respondent No. 2 which superseded the handwritten note. disputes arose soon after the second agreement, giving rise to multifarious litigations at the behest of Respondent No. 2 which are presently pending adjudication before the High Court. after 4 years, due to non-materialization of the agreement, the Respondent No. 2 got registered the present FIR u/s 420 IPC against all the other signatories to the said agreement wherein only one of the signatory was a party to it. For quashing the said FIR. the Magistrate summoned the appellants herein. Hence, this appeal. HELD THAT - There is no such legal requirement imposed on a Magistrate for passing detailed order while issuing summons. The process issued to accused cannot be quashed merely on the ground that the Magistrate had not passed a speaking order. Time and again it has been stated by this Court that the summoning order u/s 204 of the Code requires no explicit reasons to be stated because it is imperative that the Magistrate must have taken notice of the accusations and applied his mind to the allegations made in the police report and the materials filed therewith. In the light of the above discussion, we conclude that the petition filed before the High Court u/s 482 of the Code was maintainable. However, on merits, the impugned order dated 30.07.2010 passed by the High Court of Delhi is confirmed, consequently, the appeals fail and the same are dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Property dispute regarding distribution of assets left behind by late individual, Summoning order under Section 420 IPC challenged for quashing, Interpretation of Sections 190 and 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Requirement of explicit reasons for summoning an accused, Legal position on summoning orders without detailed reasons.

Detailed Analysis:

Property Dispute and Summoning Order:
The case involved a property dispute related to the assets left behind by an individual, leading to a handwritten note and a subsequent agreement between the parties. Disputes arose, resulting in the registration of an FIR under Section 420 IPC. The appellants challenged the summoning order dated 16.01.2009 before the High Court, which was subsequently rejected, leading to the appeals before the Supreme Court.

Interpretation of Sections 190 and 204 of the Code:
The key issues for consideration were whether taking cognizance of an offense is the same as summoning an accused and whether the Magistrate is required to provide reasons while summoning an accused. The Court referred to Sections 190 and 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, emphasizing that cognizance is the judicial notice of an offense by a Magistrate, which precedes the initiation of proceedings. The Magistrate is empowered to issue summons under Section 204 if there are sufficient grounds for proceeding.

Requirement of Explicit Reasons for Summoning:
The Court clarified that Section 204 of the Code does not mandate the Magistrate to explicitly state reasons for issuing summons. It was highlighted that the Magistrate must apply judicial mind to the accusations and materials before deciding on summoning. Legal precedents were cited to support the position that detailed reasons for summoning orders are not mandatory, as the Magistrate's discretion must be judicially exercised.

Legal Position on Summoning Orders:
The Court reiterated that at the stage of issuing process, the Magistrate is primarily concerned with the allegations in the complaint or evidence presented. The Magistrate is required to be prima facie satisfied with sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. Detailed reasons for summoning orders are not a legal requirement, and the Magistrate's decision must be based on the allegations and materials before him.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court confirmed the High Court's decision to reject the prayer for quashing the summoning order. The Court held that the petition under Section 482 of the Code was maintainable but dismissed the appeals. The Magistrate was directed to proceed further in accordance with the law, unaffected by any observations made in the appeals.