J&K High Court: Summoning Order of the Accused Must Reflect the Trial Court’s Application of Mind

Must Read

Madras High Court Observes Unexplained Delay in Procedural Safeguards, Quashes Detention Through Writ Petition

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus. The petitioner P. Lakshmi,...

UK Court of Appeal Rules Home Department’s Deportation Policy of Immigrants Unlawful

Britain’s Court of Appeal quashed the Home Department’s deportation policy, declaring it unlawful; criticizing it for being too stringent...

Inordinate and Unexplained Delay in Considering Representation by Government Renders Detention Order Illegal: Madras High Court

A Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed in the Madras High Court to declare the detention...

Privy Council Clarifies Approach To Winding up in “Deadlock” Cases in the Case of Chu v. Lau

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council clarified several aspects of the law concerning just and equitable winding-up petitions,...

Madras High Court Directs Hospital To Submit Necessary Medical Reports to Authorization Committee for Approval of Kidney Transplant

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a Writ of Mandamus to K.G. Hospital, Coimbatore by...

Punjab Woman Evokes Petition for Protection Fearing Honour Killing

In the case of Divya Mattu and another vs State of Punjab and others, the petitioner, Divya, fearing honour...

Follow us

On 31st August 2020, Justice Rajnesh Oswal heard the case of Vipan Aggarwal and others vs. the State of J&K, via video-conferencing. The Court held that the trial court passed the order without applying its mind. Therefore, directed it to issue a fresh order in accordance with the law.

Facts of the case

The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu received a complaint from the petitioners. On 6th July 2010, an order was passed forwarding the complaint to the In-charge Crime Branch, Jammu for investigation. Thereafter, the Crime Branch conducted preliminary verification. It was found that the petitioners had lodged a false and frivolous complaint. Therefore, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch filed a complaint under section 182 RPC against the petitioners.  The said complaint was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu.

 On 26th September 2012, the trial court summoned the petitioners. The petitioners challenged the said summon order. The grounds of challenge were that the Crime Branch failed to register FIR and further failed to perform their obligation. Moreover, the preliminary verification was conducted against the mandate of law. Therefore, the complaint is misconceived. Furthermore, the trial court did not assail any reason while issuing the process against the petitioners. The same was issued without even perusing the complaint. Thus, the present petition is sought to quash the complaint filed against them. Further, they also seek to quash the process issued in the said complaint for summoning them.

Arguments of the Petitioners

The learned counsel for the petitioners argued based on the grounds that have been already mentioned in the facts of the case.  Based on the grounds of challenge, the petitioners seek to quash the complaint and process initiated against them.

Arguments of the Respondent

The learned counsel for the respondent submits that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the petitioners under section 182 RPC. Hence, the complaint cannot be quashed at this stage.

Court’s Analysis

The trial court after receiving the complaint summoned the Senior Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch. Thereafter, it straight away issued summons against the petitioners. The perusal of the summoning order reveals that it was passed in a mechanical manner without any application of mind. 

The Court relied on the Supreme Court case of  M/s Pepsi Food Limited and another v Special Judicial Magistrate and others, AIR 1998 SC 128. It was held that summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. The order of the magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. Further, the magistrate should carefully scrutinize the evidence brought on record. He may even put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations. Further, he must examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused. It is clear that the trial court passed the order contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court. Therefore, this Court would not determine if the petitioners committed an offence or not under Section 182 RPC. This Court directs the trial court to determine whether there are sufficient grounds for proceedings against the petitioners or not.

Court’s Decision

This Court held that the trial court passed the summoning order against the petitioners in a mechanical manner. Therefore, it is quashed. The trial court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with the law. The copy of this order should be sent to the trial court for information. The Court disposed of the petition.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the Court. Follow us on Google NewsInstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Madras High Court Observes Unexplained Delay in Procedural Safeguards, Quashes Detention Through Writ Petition

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus. The petitioner P. Lakshmi, called for records of the...

UK Court of Appeal Rules Home Department’s Deportation Policy of Immigrants Unlawful

Britain’s Court of Appeal quashed the Home Department’s deportation policy, declaring it unlawful; criticizing it for being too stringent on immigrants to comply with. Background The...

Inordinate and Unexplained Delay in Considering Representation by Government Renders Detention Order Illegal: Madras High Court

A Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed in the Madras High Court to declare the detention order of the husband of...

Privy Council Clarifies Approach To Winding up in “Deadlock” Cases in the Case of Chu v. Lau

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council clarified several aspects of the law concerning just and equitable winding-up petitions, as well as shareholder disputes...

Madras High Court Directs Hospital To Submit Necessary Medical Reports to Authorization Committee for Approval of Kidney Transplant

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a Writ of Mandamus to K.G. Hospital, Coimbatore by P. Sankar & V. Sobana....

Punjab Woman Evokes Petition for Protection Fearing Honour Killing

In the case of Divya Mattu and another vs State of Punjab and others, the petitioner, Divya, fearing honour killing against her by her...

Punjab Woman Accuses Punjab Police of Keeping Husband in Illegal Custody and Framing Him in a False Case

In the case of Geeta v the State of Punjab, the petitioner evoked a writ petition of habeas corpus as she claimed that her...

Addition of Words as Prefixes or Suffixes Is an Infringement of a Registered Trademark: Delhi High Court

Justice Jayanth Nath allowed the Times Group to use its registered trademark “Newshour”, in the case of Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd v. ARG Outlier...

Just Because the Deceased Did Not Have License, Does Not Imply He Was Negligent: Chhattisgarh High Court

In the case of Hemlal & Others v. Dayaram & Others, a Single Bench of Chhattisgarh High Court consisting of Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal annunciated various...

Hoardings Are Movable Property Under Section 2(3) of DMC Act Subject To the Twin Test: Delhi High Court

Delhi High Court in the case of Delhi International Airport v South Delhi Metropolitan Corporation discussed in detail the provision under Section 2(3) of the DMC...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -