The Allahabad High Court, while passing any order under section 482 of Criminal procedure code said that first and foremost order passed by any court the reason and satisfaction of the order is necessary.
Lucknow: The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court, led by Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan, recently emphasized the importance of providing detailed reasons and subjective satisfaction while passing any order. In response to an application filed by Naseem under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) –
This provision explicitly preserves the inherent powers vested in the High Court, clarifying that the provisions of this code do not impose any restrictions on the High Court’s authority. The High Court maintains the prerogative to issue orders necessary for the enforcement of any directives under this code. Additionally, it retains the jurisdiction to intervene and prevent any abuse of the court’s processes, all in pursuit of securing the ends of justice.
The petitioner sought to challenge the order dated 15.12.2023, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh, in a case involving Sections 302, 307, 147, 148, 149, 34, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) at the Mandhata Police Station, District-Pratapgarh. The application urged the court to quash the order concerning the petitioner and stay its operation during the petition’s pendency.
The petitioner sought to challenge the order dated 15.12.2023, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh, in a case involving Sections 302, 307, 147, 148, 149, 34, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) at the Mandhata Police Station, District-Pratapgarh. The application urged the court to quash the order concerning the petitioner and stay its operation during the petition’s pendency.
A.M. Tripathi, counsel for the petitioner, highlighted the gravity of Section 319 Cr.P.C, asserting that such powers should be exercised sparingly and in rare circumstances. He emphasized that the trial court must find cogent and relevant material suggesting the need to summon a person under Section 319 CrPC. Tripathi referred to established legal principles, noting that a person summoned under this section is one against whom no FIR has been lodged, and no charge-sheet has been filed.
ALSO READ: Allahabad High Court: State’s Extension of Detention Orders Under National Security Act, 1980
A.M. Tripathi further cited the Supreme Court’s stance that when invoking powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C, the specific reasons for summoning an individual must be clearly indicated in the order.
Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC)–
- If evidence in an ongoing investigation or trial reveals someone other than the accused committed an offense, the court can take action against that person.
- The court has the authority to arrest or summon the person not present in court based on the circumstances of the case.
- Even if a person is attending court without being arrested or summoned, the court can detain them for the purpose of the inquiry or trial related to the offense they seem to have committed.
- If the court decides to proceed against such a person:
- The proceedings for that person start afresh, and witnesses are re-heard.
- The case can continue as if that person had been treated as an accused person from the beginning of the court’s cognizance of the offense under investigation or trial, with certain provisions.
Additional Government Advocate-I, Aniruddha Kumar Singh, acknowledged Tripathi’s technical argument about the order’s lack of reasoning. However, he defended the merits of the case, pointing out that the trial court had invoked Section 319 Cr.P.C based on the examination of an injured witness.
ALSO READ: Punjab and Haryana High Court Hold Back Trial in 10,000 Covid-19 Violation Cases
After hearing both sides, the Allahabad High Court concurred with Tripathi’s argument regarding the absence of subjective satisfaction in the trial court’s order.
The court stated-
“To assign the reason and give subjective satisfaction while passing any order is the first and foremost requirement of the order passed by any Court or the Competent Authority.”
The court emphasized that failure to inform the person summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C about the specific sections under which their trial is required would hinder their ability to defend themselves adequately. The court declared,
“Any order bereft of reasoning would be nullity in the eyes of law.”
The Allahabad High Court granted the petition, canceling the order dated 15.12.2023.
