2022 (5) TMI 1605 - HC - Indian Laws

Validity of summon order - summoning order has been passed on a printed proforma without application of judicious mind - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - On going through the record the statutory provisions and as per the law settled the position which emerges out is that a Court can take cognizance of an offence only when condition requisite for initiation of proceedings before it as set out in Chapter XIV of the Code are fulfilled. In the case of BHUSHAN KUMAR ANR. VERSUS STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ANR. 2012 (4) TMI 746 - SUPREME COURT the Hon ble Apex Court was pleased to observe that section 204 of the Code does not mandate the Magistrate to explicitly state the reasons for issuance of summons. It clearly states that if in the opinion of a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence there is sufficient ground for proceeding then the summons may be issued. This section mandates the Magistrate to form an opinion as to whether there exists a sufficient ground for summons to be issued but it is nowhere mentioned in the section that the explicit narration of the same is mandatory meaning thereby that it is not a pre-requisite for deciding the validity of the summons issued. It is clear that the order dated 01.12.2020 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Shamli is without application of judicious mind on a printed proforma in mechanical manner and the cognizance and summoning order dated 01.12.2020 cannot be legally sustained as the Magistrate failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him. The matter is remitted back to learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Shamli with a direction to decide afresh - the application/petition is partly allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the impugned ChargeSheet dated 16.11.2020.
2. Validity of the summoning orders dated 01.12.2020 and 25.03.2021.
3. Application of judicial mind in issuing the summoning order.
4. Compliance with statutory provisions under Chapter XIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).
5. Requirement for detailed reasoning in judicial orders.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Impugned ChargeSheet Dated 16.11.2020:
The petition sought to quash the ChargeSheet dated 16.11.2020 in Case Crime No. 709 of 2019 under various sections of the IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act. The court did not specifically address the validity of the ChargeSheet itself but focused on the process of taking cognizance and issuing summons.

2. Validity of the Summoning Orders Dated 01.12.2020 and 25.03.2021:
The summoning orders were challenged on the grounds that they were issued on a printed proforma without the application of judicial mind. The court observed that judicial orders, including summoning orders, must not be issued mechanically or routinely. The summoning orders in question were found to be issued without proper judicial scrutiny and thus were quashed.

3. Application of Judicial Mind in Issuing the Summoning Order:
The court emphasized that before taking cognizance and issuing summons, the magistrate must apply judicial mind to the material collected by the Investigating Officer. The court cited several precedents, including Basaruddin & others Vs. State of U.P., Bhushan Kumar and Anr. v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr., and Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation, to reinforce that the magistrate must form an opinion based on the facts and circumstances of the case. The impugned orders were found to lack such application of mind.

4. Compliance with Statutory Provisions Under Chapter XIV of the Cr.P.C.:
The court reiterated that cognizance of an offence can only be taken when the conditions set out in Chapter XIV of the Cr.P.C. are fulfilled. The magistrate must ensure that there are sufficient grounds to proceed further based on the material collected. The court found that the magistrate in this case did not fulfill these statutory requirements, rendering the summoning orders invalid.

5. Requirement for Detailed Reasoning in Judicial Orders:
While the court acknowledged that detailed reasoning is not mandatory for issuing summons under Section 204 of the Cr.P.C., it stressed that there must be an application of judicial mind. The court cited cases like Ankit Vs. State of U.P. and another, Kavi Ahmad Vs. State of U.P., and Abdul Rasheed and others Vs. State of U.P. to highlight that orders passed in a mechanical manner, such as filling in blanks on a printed proforma, are unsustainable.

Conclusion:
The court quashed the cognizance and summoning orders dated 01.12.2020 and 25.03.2021, issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shamli, in Case Crime No. 709 of 2019. The matter was remitted back to the Chief Judicial Magistrate with directions to decide afresh and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law, considering the observations made by the court. The application/petition was partly allowed.