RAJ MANI CHAUHAN, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner 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 petitioner with the following prayers:- "It is most respectfully prayed that the Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash the entire criminal complaint Case No. 2533/2010, under Sections 9, 49-B/52, 51 of Wild Life Protection Act, and Section 26 of the Indian Forest Act and also quash the summoning order dated 05.03.2010 and bailable warrant order dated 12.08.2010 both passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kheri pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Kheri (State of U.P. Vs Uttam Kumar and others), in the interest of justice."
(2.) THE relevant facts giving rise to the present petition in brief are that Divisional Forest Officer, North, Lakhimpur Kheri, Van Prabhag, Department of Forest, District Lakhimpr Kheri filed a complaint against the accused-petitioner and others under Sections 9, 49-B, 51 of Wild Life Protection Act and Section 26 of the Indian Forest Act before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (hereinafter referred to as Magistrate). The learned Magistrate after taking cognizance of the offence on the complaint of complainant has summoned the accused by the impugned order dated 05.03.2010 which gave rise to the present petition. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the learned Magistrate without applying his mind has summoned the accused in a mechanical way. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Magistrate did not mention the offences for which he has taken cognizance and summoned the accused. The impugned order of taking cognizance is 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 basis of compliant filed by the complainant has taken cognizance of the offence but he did not mention the offence for which accused has been summoned. Learned Magistrate was expected to go through the allegations made in the complaint and to record his reason as to what offences, prima facie, were being made out against the accused. It appears that learned Magistrate did not bother to go through the allegations made in the complaint and to record specific finding as to what offences, prima facice, were being made out against the accused. 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, Kheri with the direction to go through the allegations made in the complaint and to ascertain as to what offences were being made out against the accused on the basis of allegations made in the complaint and pass fresh order and thereafter, he will proceed according to law.
(3.) THE petition is, therefore, allowed. The impugned summoning order dated 05.03.2010 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kheri is hereby quashed. The matter is remanded back to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kheri to pass a fresh order in light of the observation made herein above.;