The trial court while issuing summons, shall record detailed reasons, which should apparently show the application of mind and this duty of Magistrate cannot be marginalized – Allahabad High Court

Case Details:
Case Name: Dr. Shail Kumar Jain v State of UP and another
Case No.: Application Under Section 482 No.-7244 of 2023
Bench: Hon’ble Shree Prakash Singh, J.

While allowing the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to set aside the impugned summoning order, the bench of Hon’ble Shree Prakash Singh,J. has held that trial Court shall record detailed reasons which should show the application of mind and this duty of Magistrate cannot be marginalized.

The Hon’ble Court observed that the Hon’ble Apex Court has time and again emphasized, in a catena of decisions, that mere statement that he (Magistrate) has gone through the complaint, documents and hearing the complainant ,as such, as reflected in the order, will not be sufficient….what weighed with the Magistrate to order investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., should be reflected in the order…

Placing reliance on the judgement passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Lalita Kumari v State of UP (2014) 2 SCC 1 wherein the Constitution bench has answered in the following words “… Although, we,in unequivocal terms, hold that Section 154 of the Code postulates the mandatory registration of FIRs on receipt of all cognizable offences, yet, there may be instances where preliminary inquiry may be required owing to the change in genesis and novelty of crimes with the passage of time. One such instance is in the case of allegations relating to medical negligence on the part of doctors. It will be unfair and inequitable to prosecute a medical professional only on the basis of the allegations in the complaint.

After so stating the Constitution Bench [(2014) 2 SCC 1 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 524] proceeded to state that where a preliminary enquiry is necessary, it is not for the purpose for verification or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence. After laying down so, the larger Bench proceeded to state : (Lalita Kumari case [(2014) 2 SCC 1 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 524] , SCC p. 61, para 120)“

“…As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made are as under:
(a) Matrimonial disputes/family disputes
(b) Commercial offences
(c) Medical negligence cases
(d) Corruption cases
(e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months’ delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay.
The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry.

…While ensuring and protecting the rights of the accused and the complainant, a preliminary inquiry should be made time-bound and in any case it should not exceed 7 days. The fact of such delay and the causes of it must be reflected in the general diary entry.”
We have referred to the aforesaid pronouncement for the purpose that in certain circumstances the police is also required to hold a preliminary enquiry whether any cognizable offence is made out or not.”

The Court upon hearing both the parties concluded that there is merit in the case and the summoning order be set aside and the Hon’ble bench remitted the matter back to the trail Court to pass fresh order.

Read the judgement here: A482L_7244_2023_Dr Shail Kumar Jain v State of UP and another