RAJ MANI CHAUHAN, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. as well as perused the documents available on record. This petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as Code) has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayers:- "Wherefore it is most respectfully prayed that the Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to pass an order quashing the impugned summoning order including the order of taking of cognizance dated 29.10.2009, passed by learned C.J.M. in complaint case No. 14824 of 2009 as well as the entire proceeding pending before the court below and any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just, fit and proper under the circumstances of the case, may also kindly be passed in order to meet in ends of justice."
(2.) THE relevant facts giving rise to the present petition in brief are that complainant No.1 Deputy Director, Dudwa Tiger Division Palia, Lakhimpur Kheri and complainant No.2 Regional Forest Officer, Belraiya Ranje, Dudwa Tiger Reserve Prabhag, Palia, Lakhimpur Kheri filed a complaint against the accused for summoning them to face trial under Sections 2, 27, 31, 35 (6), 39, 51, 52 of the Wild Life Protection Act and under Sections 26, 41, 42, 77 of the Forest Act. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (hereinafter referred to as Magistrate) vide impugned order dated 29.10.2009 has summoned the accused on the complaint of complainants. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the learned Magistrate without applying his mind has summoned the accused in a mechanical way filling the date in the typed proforma for taking cognizance. From a perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned Magistrate did not try to go through the compliant and to ascertain as to what offences were being made out against the accused. In fact, on the basis of allegations made in the complaint no offences were being made out against the accused-petitioners either under the Wild Life Protection Act or under the Indian Forest Act. The impugned order of taking cognizance is, therefore, illegal and liable to be quashed. Sri Rajendra Kumar Dwivedi, learned A.G.A. although supported the impugned order but fairly accepts that the learned Magistrate was expected to go through the complaint and to ascertain which offences were being made out against the accused on the basis of allegations made in the complaint. Thereafter, he should have summoned the accused for those offences. To this extent, the impugned order can be said to be based on non-application of mind. Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. From a perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned Magistrate on the complaint filed by the complainants has summoned the accused in a mechanical way filling the date in the typed proforma. Learned Magistrate while taking cognizance of the offence on complaint was expected to go through the allegations made in the complaint and to satisfy himself as to which offences were, prima facie, being made out against the accused on basis of allegations made in the complaint. It appears that the learned Magistrate did not bother to go through the allegations made in the complaint and ascertain as to what offences were, prima facie, being made out against the accused on the basis of allegations made in the complaint. Apparently, the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate suffers from non-application of mind while taking cognizance of the offence. The impugned order is not well reasoned order, therefore, the same is liable to be quashed and the petition deserves to be allowed and the matter may be remanded back to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lakhimpur Kheri with direction to him to go through the allegations made in the complaint and ascertain as to what offences against the accused were, prima facie, being made out against the accused on the basis of allegations made in the complaint and pass fresh order, thereafter, he will proceed according to law.
(3.) THE petition is, therefore, allowed. The summoning order dated 29.10.2009 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lakhimpur Kheri is hereby quashed and the matter is remanded back to learned Chief Judicial Magistrate with a direction to pass a fresh order in light of the observations made herein above.;