Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Nitin K. Muchhala, Director of Unity Pharma P. Ltd., challenged an order dated 4th December 2003 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 10th Court, Andheri, Mumbai, accepting the investigating officer's request for 'B' summary in a criminal case. The High Court observed that the impugned order was passed without following the prescribed procedure and without hearing the complainant, contrary to the decisions of the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court. The order did not disclose any application of mind and was merely a rubber stamp acceptance of the police submission. Consequently, the High Court quashed and set aside the order and remanded the matter to the Metropolitan Magistrate to decide afresh after hearing the complainant and passing a speaking order in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - 'B' Summary - Hearing to Complainant - Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - The Magistrate passed an order granting 'B' summary without hearing the complainant and without disclosing any application of mind. The order was in the form of a rubber stamp accepting the police submission. Held that such order is not sustainable and must be set aside and remanded for fresh decision after hearing the complainant and passing a speaking order (Paras 3-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order granting 'B' summary without hearing the complainant and without application of mind is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the Metropolitan Magistrate to decide afresh after hearing the complainant and on proper application of mind and in accordance with law by passing a speaking order.
Law Points
- Complainant must be heard before grant of 'B' summary
- Order must disclose application of mind
- Speaking order required
Case Details
2005 LawText (BOM) (03) 63
Criminal Writ Petition No.352 of 2005
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, P.V. Kakade
Mr. Girish Kulkarni for the petitioner, Mr. B.H. Mehta, A.P.P. for the respondents
Binod Singh, Amab Raichuramani, Trigram Ltd., Brahma Drugs Pvt. Ltd., Genom Biotech Pvt. Ltd., State of Maharashtra
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal writ petition challenging order granting 'B' summary
Remedy Sought
Quashing of the order dated 4th December 2003 granting 'B' summary
Filing Reason
Order passed without hearing the complainant and without application of mind
Previous Decisions
Order dated 4th December 2003 by Metropolitan Magistrate, 10th Court, Andheri, Mumbai granting 'B' summary
Issues
Whether the order granting 'B' summary without hearing the complainant is sustainable?
Whether the order discloses application of mind?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the order was passed without hearing the complainant and without application of mind.
Ratio Decidendi
An order granting 'B' summary must be passed after hearing the complainant and must disclose application of mind; otherwise it is not sustainable.
Judgment Excerpts
The bare reading of the impugned order discloses that the same has been passed without following the procedure prescribed by law...
Perusal of the order discloses that it is in the form of a rubber stamp of having accepted the submission made by the police authorities and therefor grant of 'B' summary.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed a criminal writ petition challenging the order dated 4th December 2003 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 10th Court, Andheri, Mumbai granting 'B' summary. The High Court heard the matter and passed the present judgment on 2nd March 2005.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 173
