- (1.) Heard Sri S.P. Gupta, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Shubham Agarwal, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Sri Akhilesh Singh, learned Government Advocate assisted by Sri N.K. Verma, learned A.G.A. for the State. The present revision has been filed against summoning order dated 16.12.2014 passed by Judicial Magistrate-II, Allahabad issuing summons to accused-persons including revisionist-accused under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 406 I.P.C. in Criminal Case No.1808 of 2014 arising out of Case Crime No.480 of 2014. The impugned order runs as follows:- 585476-1
(2.) Learned counsel for the revisionist argued that the revisionist is not named in F.I.R. but charge-sheet has been submitted against him as well as other accused-persons upon which learned magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences and has issued summons without due application of mind; that the impugned order appears to have been written by the court staff and appears to have been signed by the magistrate without considering the material on record; that before taking cognizance of offence, the magistrate was required to examine the nature of allegations made in F.I.R. as well as the oral and documentary evidence collected by Investigating Officer and then to record its satisfaction that the material on record is sufficient for complainant to succeed in bringing the persons named in the complaint and charge-sheet to the court room; that the impugned order is laconic and perfunctory and has been passed without application of mind in mechanical manner; that no offence of breach of trust, fraud, cheating or forgery as contemplated under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 476 I.P.C. is made out against the revisionist from the charge-sheet or material filed therewith; that the impugned order dated 16.12.2014 is wrong, illegal and does not fulfil the necessary conditions of Section 190 read with Section 204 Cr.P.C. and is liable to be set-aside. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the revisionist placed reliance on Ankit Vs. State of U.P. and another,2009 67 ACC 532, in which the cognizance order was passed upon printed proforma by filling the gaps, was held to have been passed in mechanical manner without application of mind and was quashed under inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
(3.) He further relied on GHCL Employees Stock Option Trust Vs. India Infoline Limited, 2013 4 SCC 505and Sunil Bharti Mittal Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2015 AIR(SCW) 642, in which cases the cognizance order was found to be wrong, incorrect and not sustainable. It was also contended that some of co-accused moved an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No.897 of 2015 for quashing the charge-sheet dated 12.12.2014, submitted in pursuance to the F.I.R. dated 18.9.2014 as well as summoning order dated 16.12.2014 by moving an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. which has been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 20.3.2015 but dismissal of an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by some of the accused may not be bar to filing of revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. On this point, he has placed reliance on Vasudev Dani Vs. Purushottam Das Khandelwal and another, 2004 13 SCC 506, where dismissal of application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. merely on the ground that another petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by co-accused against the same order had already been dismissed, was found wrong.;