Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs Rajeev Gupta & on 3 July, 2025
2025:UHC:5724
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
C482 No. 1203 of 2016
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Mani Kumar, learned counsel for
applicant.
2. Mr. Deepak Bisht, learned Deputy A.G.
along with Mr. Prabhat Kandpal, learned
Brief Holder for the State.
3. This application under Section 482
Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant
seeking quashing of the charge-sheet dated
15.06.2015 as well as the
cognizance/summoning order dated
30.11.2015, passed in Criminal Case No.
5337 of 2015, State vs. Rajeev Gupta &
Others, under Sections 352, 504, 506, 147
read with Section 34 IPC pending before the
learned Judicial Magistrate, Rudrapur,
District Udham Singh Nagar.
4. Brief facts of the case are that
respondent no.2/complainant lodged an F.I.R.
against the applicants alleging that on
29.03.2015 at about 9:30 PM, the applicant
no.1 called respondent no.2, Virendra Tiwari,
and Pudena Sahni to his house. It is alleged
that construction work on a government road
was underway in front of the applicant’s
house, which led to a dispute between
applicant no.1 and his neighbor, Satpal
Kumar.
5. It is also alleged that though the dispute
had allegedly been resolved with the
intervention of certain individuals, including
Anand Sharma, Virendra Tiwari, and the
husband of a ward member, the applicant
continued the construction work against the
2025:UHC:5724
terms of the compromise and when the same
was protested, it is alleged that Jitendra,
brother of applicant no.1, brought a filled gas
cylinder, opened its pin, and threw it in the
direction of Pudena Sahni, Anand Sharma,
Virendra Tiwari, and the contractor and
laborers present at the site. It is further
alleged that other family members of the
applicant also threatened those present. On
the basis of the F.I.R., after investigation, the
police filed a charge-sheet and the Magistrate
took cognizance and issued summons. Hence,
the present petition.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant would
further submit that the applicants are innocent
and have been falsely implicated. The F.I.R.
is highly doubtful and appears to have been
lodged due to local rivalry and vested
interests; that, respondent no.2 along with
other individuals projecting themselves as
local leaders, allegedly instigated Satpal
Kumar to encroach upon land designated as
Green Belt, which is government property
where no construction can legally be
undertaken.
7. He would further submit that with
regard to the said land dispute, applicant no.1
and others had instituted Civil Suit No. 56 of
2012, which was decreed on 31.03.2016,
restraining Satpal Kumar from raising any
construction on the land in question. It is also
argued that the present F.I.R. has been lodged
during the pendency of the said civil suit by
Satpal in collusion with respondent no.2,
Pudena Sahni, and Virendra Tiwari.
8. Learned counsel for the applicant would
further submit that there is no independent
witness to the alleged incident and it is
admitted in the F.I.R. that no one sustained
2025:UHC:5724
injuries. He would further submit that the
charge-sheet was submitted by the
Investigating Officer in collusion with
respondent no.2, and the cognizance order
was passed in a mechanical and casual
manner. He would further submit that the
impugned order is a cyclostyled or proforma
order devoid of reasons and passed without
judicial application of mind thus being legally
unsustainable.
9. Per contra, learned State counsel
opposed the submissions and supported the
impugned summoning order.
10. Heard learned counsel for the parties
and perused the material available on record.
11. The main ground raised by learned
counsel for the applicant is that the
cognizance/summoning order has been
passed in a routine and mechanical manner
using a printed proforma, without proper
application of judicial mind.
12. In Ankit vs. State of U.P. & Another,
2009 (9) ADJ 778, the Hon’ble Court held
that though a detailed reasoned order is not
required at the stage of taking cognizance, the
Magistrate is still expected to apply judicial
mind and cannot mechanically pass orders by
merely filling blanks on a printed format.
13. In Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Another vs.
Special Judicial Magistrate & Others, (1998)
5 SCC 749, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed
that summoning of an accused is a serious
matter and the Magistrate must be cautious
and ensure that the order reflects due
consideration of the material placed before
the Court.
14. In GHCL Employees Stock Option Trust
vs. India Infoline Ltd., (2013) 2 SCC 505, the
2025:UHC:5724
Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that
summoning an accused has serious
consequences on a person’s reputation and
criminal law cannot be set in motion casually
or mechanically.
15. A perusal of the summoning order dated
30.11.2015 reveals that it was passed on a
printed format without any proper reasoning
or application of mind. Considering the
serious implications of summoning an
accused in a criminal matter, the order should
have reflected judicial application to both
facts and law, which is evidently lacking in
the impugned order.
16. In view of the above, the present
application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is
allowed. The cognizance/summoning order
dated 30.11.2015 passed by the learned
Judicial Magistrate, Rudrapur, District
Udham Singh Nagar is hereby quashed. The
learned Magistrate is directed to reconsider
the issue of taking cognizance and
summoning afresh and pass a reasoned order
in accordance with law.
17. Pending applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
(Alok Mahra, J.)
03.07.2025
Mamta
2025:UHC:5724
Therefore, the impugned order is liable to
be quashed and the matter has to be sent
back to the Court below for passing fresh
order on the charge sheet after applying
judicial mind.”(Emphasis supplied)