Allahabad High Court - Lucknow Bench Judgement

Allahabad High Court - Lucknow Bench Judgement

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice at mail@myadvocates.club
JUDGEMENT HEADLINE : The High Court Is Required To Be Extremely Careful When Summons Are Issued To The Judicial Officers To Appear In The Court.
JUDGEMENT TITLE : Rajendra Prasad Vs. State Of U.P.Thr.Prin.Secy.Home,Civil Sectt.Lucknow & Others On 10/04/2014 By Allahabad High Court - Lucknow Bench
CASE NO : MISC. BENCH NO. 9736 OF 2013
CORAM : Hon'ble Sunil Ambwani,J. And Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH

Court No. - 1

Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 9736 Of 2013
Petitioner :- Rajendra Prasad
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thr.Prin.Secy.Home,Civil Sectt.Lucknow & Others
Counsel For Petitioner :- Amrendra Nath Tripathi,Suresh Kumar Yadav
Counsel For Respondent :- C.S.C.,Manish Kumar

Hon'ble Sunil Ambwani,J.
Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J.
1. We Have Heard Shri Amrendra Nath Tripathi, Learned Counsel Appearing For The Petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel Appears For The State Respondents. Shri Manish Kumar Has Entered Appearance On Behalf Of Respondent No.4, Who Is Present In The Court.
2. By This Writ Petition The Petitioner Has Prayed For Following Reliefs:-
"i) To Issue A Writ Of Mandamus Commanding The Respondents To Adequately Compensate The Petitioner For Illegally Taking The Petitioner In Judicial Custody From Intervening Night Of 23/24.8.12 (when Arrested) To 27.8.12 (when Released On Bail), For Alleged Offence For Which He Was Already Been Exonerated By Court Of Competent Jurisdiction In Thus Infringing His Right Protected Under Article 21 Of The Constitution. This Hon'ble Court May Further Be Pleased To Direct The Respondent To Recover The Said Compensation From The Person Found Guilty For The Violation Of The Right Of The Petitioner.
ii) To Issue Any Other Writ, Order Or Direction, Which This Hon'ble High Court May Deem Fit And Proper In The Circumstances Of The Case, May Be Passed In Favour Of The Petitioner And Against The Respondents."
3. It Is Stated That In Case Crime No.1071 Of 1992 Under Sections 457, 380, 411 IPC P.S. Kotwali, Barabanki There Were Three Accused Namely Kuldeep, Rajendra Prasad And Rakesh. The Trial Of Kuldeep And Rajendra Prasad Was Separated In The Year 2000, After Which A Separate Case No.104/2000 Was Registered. In This Separated Criminal Case Shri Kuldeep And Shri Rajendra Prasad Were Acquitted By The IInd Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Barabanki On 20.12.2000. The Trial Of Case No.407 Of 2000, However, Was Pending Before The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Confined Only To The Accused Rakesh.
4. It Appears That Rakesh Was Avoiding His Appearance On Which Non-bailable Warrants Were Directed To Be Issued. The Warrants Were Not Executed For A Long Period Of Time, Despite Orders Passed From Time To Time By The Magistrates Succeeding In Office. The Respondent No.4 Took Charge Of The Office As Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barabanki On 17.4.2012. On 20.4.2012 She Passed An Order On The Date Fixed In The Case In The Same Manner In Which It Was Being Passed For The Last Twelves Years By Her Predecessors For Issuing Non-bailable Warrants For Securing The Presence Of The Accused.
5. It Is Submitted By Learned Counsel Appearing For The Petitioner That On Account Of Malafides On The Part Of The Respondent No.4, The Non-bailable Warrant Was Issued Against Him, Whereas He Stood Acquitted In A Trial Of The Separated Case No.104 Of 2000, In The Same Crime On 20.12.2000. He Was Arrested By The Police In The Night Of August 23/24, 2012, And Produced Before The Chief Judicial Magistrate On 24.8.2012. On That Day He Did Not Move Any Bail Application For His Release. The Bail Application Was Moved By The Petitioner On 27.8.2012 After Three Days, During Which He Remanded In Judicial Custody, And On The Same Day On 27.8.2012 Despite Opposition By Asst. Prosecution Officer, He Was Directed To Be Released On Furnishing Bail Bonds Of Rs.10,000/- And Personal Bonds Of The Like Amount. Thereafter Several Dates Were Fixed In The Case. The Petitioner Filed An Application After One Year On 26.8.2013 For Summoning The Records Of The Case No.104 Of 2000 Decided On 20.12.2000. The Records Were Summoned And The Order Was Ultimately Passed On 20.10.2013, To Relieve Him From The Criminal Case No.407 Of 2000.
6. In This Writ Petition The Petitioner Has Prayed For Compensation For His Unlawful Detention For A Period Of Four Days Between The Night Of 23/24.8.2012 To 27.8.2012 On The Grounds Of Gross Negligence Actuated With Malafides. It Is Submitted That There Was No Case Pending Against The Petitioner After He Was Acquitted In The Separated Trial In Case No.104 Of 2000 And That Despite Full Knowledge That The Petitioner Has Been Acquitted, On Malafides Attributed To The Petitioner's Uncle, Who Is Arrayed As Respondent No.3 And Was Posted As District Judge, Basti At The Relevant Time, The Petitioner Was Not Released. It Is Submitted That The Petitioner's Rights Under Article 21 Of Constitution Of India Has Been Violated Inasmuch As He Was Detained Without Any Authority Of Law And That Despite His Oral Pleadings And Ultimately The Application Dated 27.8.2012, That He Has Been Acquitted In A Separated Trial, Final Orders With Regard To Closing The Matter Against Him Was Passed On 23.10.2013.
7. We Have Examined The Allegations Carefully. Though It Is True That The Petitioner Was Acquitted In The Separated Trial Of The Same Criminal Case On 20.12.2000, His Name Still Appeared On The Ordersheet Of The File Of Case No.407 Of 2000 In Which The Third Remaining Accused Rakesh Was Absconding. The Chief Judicial Magistrate Had Joined Duties On Transfer On 17.4.2012. When The File Was Placed Before Her, She Passed An Order In The Same Manner In Which The Orders Were Passed By Her Predecessors For Issuing Non-bailable Warrants To Summon The Accused. There Was Nothing On Record Nor There Was Any Counsel To Apprise Her That The Trial Of The Two Accused Was Separated In The Year 2000 And They Were Acquitted On 20.12.2000. The Police Carried Out The Order And Produced The Petitioner In The Court On 24.8.2012. Surprisingly The Petitioner Did Not Move Any Bail Application On The Same Day. The Application Was Moved On 27.8.2012 Without Giving Case Number, And The Date Of Acquittal In The Separated Case. The Bail Application Did Not Give Any Details Of The Fact Of Acquittal. In Paragraph-4 Of The Application, It Was Stated That "ewy Eqdnek L0 Fo0 Dqynhi DkQh IwoZ Gh FuLrkfjr Gks Pqdk GSA IzkFkhZ 4 Fnu Ls Tsy Esa GSA IzkFkhZ MifLFkfr Ds LEca/k Es Eqpydk Tekur Nkf[ky Djus Dks RS;kj GSA"
8. Despite The Error In Drafting The Application In Which No Details Were Given About The Case Number, Sections Of Indian Penal Code, The Cause Title, And The Date Of Acquittal, The Chief Judicial Magistrate Directed That He May Be Released On Bail On The Same Day On Furnishing Security Of Rs.10,000/- And Personal Bond Of The Like Amount. It Is Admitted That The Petitioner Gave Personal Bond And Was Released On The Same Day When He Moved The Application.
9. We Also Find That Despite The Grant Of The Bail And Fixation Of Dates, The Petitioner Did Not Make A Proper Application Giving Details Of The Case In Which He Was Acquitted Until After One Year, On 26.8.2013 And On Which The Chief Judicial Magistrate-respondent No.4 Summoned The File And Passed The Final Order On 23.10.2013.
10. The Allegations Of Malafides Are Not Substantiated. Learned Counsel Appearing For The Petitioner Has Tried To Argue That The Petitioner Was Sent To Jail Illegally At The Instance Of His Uncle. We Do Not Find That The Allegations Are Such Which Require Any Examination As An Apparent Bonafide Error, Is Sought To Be Capitalised By The Petitioner To Settle Scores With His Uncle, With Whom He Is Engaged In A Suit For Partition Of Agricultural Land.
11. In This Case The Chief Judicial Magistrate Was Summoned On 4.3.2012. The Order Reads As Follows:-
"List On 21.3.2014 On Which Date Smt.Shivani Jaiswal, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barabanki Is Directed To Appear In Person.

The Record Which Is Available With Mr.Manish Kumar, Learned Counsel Appearing For The Opposite Parties Shall Again Be Produced On The Next Date Of Listing.

12. We Are Of The View That Though The High Court Has Discretion To Summon A Person Whose Attendance Is Necessary In The Court For Deciding The Case, When The Summoning Of A Serving Judicial Officer Is Concerned, The Court Must Record Sufficient Reasons For Summoning Her And Give Sufficient Indication For The Purpose For Which She Is Summoned To The High Court. The Judicial Officers Discharge Important Judicial Functions Under The Supervision Of The Court. The High Curt Is Required To Be Extremely Careful When Summons Are Issued To The Judicial Officers To Appear In The Court. It Is Only When The Allegations Are Substantiated That The Court May, If It Is Necessary To Decide Any Case And If It Is Absolutely Necessary In A Rarest Of Rare Case To Summon The Judicial Officer After Recording Reasons On Record, And If Such Necessity Arises The Proceeding Should Be Held In Camera, So That The Judicial Officer Is Not Put To Embarrassment And Is Not Required To Face The Same Litigants, Who Are Appearing Or Have Appeared In Court. So Far As Possible The Proceedings Should Be Concluded On Affidavits Filed By The Judicial Officer Concerned.
13. For The Aforesaid Reasons We Do Not Find Any Good Ground In The Writ Petition To Grant Reliefs To The Petitioner. The Non-bailable Warrants Were Issued To The Petitioner By A Bonafide Error. Having Appeared In The Court He Did Not Choose To Make Any Application For Bail On The Same Day. He Filed An Application For Bail After Waiting For Three Days Without Giving Necessary Details And Particulars Of The Order Of His Acquittal. On Such An Application The Judicial Officer Should Not Have Released Him Unless The Facts Were Verified From The Record. Despite Insufficient Details The Respondent No.4 Took Cognizance Of The Facts And Directed Release Of The Petitioner On The Same Day. She May Have Committed A Bonafide Error But As Soon As The Error Came To Her Notice, She Took Immediate Remedial Step And Without Waiting The Verification Of The Insufficient Pleas From Records The Petitioner Was Released. We Do Not Find That She Has Acted In Any Manner Which Requires Any Further Scrutiny By The Court.
14. The Writ Petition Is Dismissed

Go to Navigation