- (1.) AMAR Saran, J. Heard learned Counsel for the applicants and Sri Vinod Kumar Mishra, learned A. G. A. This application has been filed for challenging an order summoning the applicants along with some other accused by order dated 13. 9. 2007 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Room No. 1, Firozabad in Case No. 3078 of 2007 under sections 147, 353, 336, 427, 504, 506 IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, P. S. Sirsaganj, district Firozabad, and for quashing the criminal proceedings thereof.
(2.) ESSENTIALLY one submission has been made that the summoning order dated 13. 9. 207 passed on a charge-sheet was on a printed proforma and it revealed lack of application of mind. Learned Counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on a judgment passed by a Single Judge (Hon'ble K. N. Sinha, J.) in the case of Chhaya William (Smt.) and others v. State of U. P. and another, 2003 (47) ACC 1017 that the summoning order must disclose application of mind. It may be mentioned that the said decision was passed when the summoning order was passed in a complaint case. The present case is a case of summoning all the accused-after submission of the charge-sheet and in a charge-sheet case as mentioned in Rule 21 of General Rules Criminal, after cognizance only an order for assigning serial number to the case is required. Furthermore, the decision of Single Judge appears to be per incuriam, as it has clearly been mentioned in the case of Dy. Chief Controller of Imports and Exports v. Roshan Lal Agarwal and others, 2003 (46) ACC 686 by the Apex Court that no detail reasons are required to be mentioned in a summoning order even in a complaint case and it is only in cases where a complaint is being dismissed that reasons should be recorded. Reliance was placed in the case of Dy. Chief Controller of Imports and Exports v. Roshan Lal Agarwal and others, 2003 (46) ACC 686 on the two other decisions of the Apex Court U. P. Pollution Control Board v. M/s. Mohan Meakins Ltd. and others, AIR 2000 SC 1456 and Kanti Bhadra Shah v. State of West Bengal 2000 (40) ACC 441 (SC ). Paragraph Nos. 8 and 9 of the Dy. Chief Controller Imports and Export's case are material and are being extracted as under: - 8. The second reason given by the High Court for allowing the petition filed by the respondents (accused) is that the order passed by the Special Court taking cognizance of the of fence-does not show that the learned' Magistrate had even perused the complaint or that he had applied his judicial mind before taking of the cognizance. The order passed by the learned Magistrate reads as under: " Cognizance taken, Register the case. Issue summons to the accused. " 9. In determining the question whether any process is to be issued or not, what the Magistrate has to be satisfied is whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding and not, whether there is sufficient ground for conviction. Whether the evidence is adequate for supporting the conviction, can be determined only at the trial and not at the stage of inquiry. At the stage of issuing the process to the accused, the Magistrate is not required to record reasons. This question was considered recently in U. P. Pollution Control Board v. M/s. Mohan Meakins Ltd. and others, AIR 2000 SC 1456 and after noticing the law laid down in Kanti Bhadra Shah v. State of West Bengal, 2000 (40) ACC 441 (SC) it was held as follows: - The legislature has stressed the need to record reasons in certain situations such as dismissal of a complaint without issuing process. 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. "
(3.) PARAGRAPH No. 12 in the case of Kanti Bhadra Shah v. State of West Bengal, 2000 (40) ACC 441 (SC) = AIR 2000 SC 522 can also be seen in this light to advantage, which reads as follows: - " If there is no legal requirement that the trial Court should write an order showing the reasons for framing a charge, why should the already burdened Trial Courts be further burdened with such an extra work. The time has reached to adopt all possible measures to expedite the Court procedures and to chalk out measures to avert all roadblocks causing avoidable delays. If a Magistrate is to write detailed orders at different states, the snail-paced progress of proceedings in Trial Courts would further be slowed down. We are coming across interlocutory orders of Magistrates and Sessions Judges running in to several pages. We can appreciate if such a detailed order has been passed for culminating the proceedings before them. But it is quite unnecessary to write detailed orders at other stages, such as issuing process, remanding the accused to custody, framing of charges, passing over to next stages in the trial. " In this view of the matter, the summoning order cannot be faulted on the aforesaid grounds.;