Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Pramod Kumar Agrawal, challenged an order passed by the learned Magistrate on 7.11.2014 issuing process against him in a criminal complaint filed by respondent No.1, Ashish Agrawal. The petitioner appeared in person and argued that the impugned order was illegal because it did not reflect application of mind by the Magistrate. However, he submitted that the settled law only requires a short order summarizing reasons, and the Magistrate's order did exactly that by considering the complaint allegations, documents, and various court orders. Respondent No.1's counsel, Shri M.R. Joharapurkar, disagreed, contending that a bare perusal of the order showed it was passed without judicial application of mind. He relied on several Supreme Court cases including Anil Kumar v. M.K. Aiyappa, S.R. Sukumar v. S. Sunaad Raghuram, Sunil Bharti Mittal v. CBI, and Chandra Deo Singh v. Prokash Chandra Bose. The petitioner relied on Sonu Gupta v. Deepak Gupta. The court analyzed the Magistrate's order and found that it mentioned consideration of the complaint, documents, and court orders, which indicated application of mind. The court held that the order was not illegal and dismissed the petition, upholding the Magistrate's order.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Issuance of Process - Section 204 CrPC - Application of Mind - The Magistrate while issuing process must apply his mind to the facts and decide if a prima facie case is made out, though a detailed order is not required. A short order summarizing reasons is sufficient. In this case, the Magistrate's one-paragraph order dated 7.11.2014 considered the complaint allegations, documents, and court orders, thus reflecting application of mind. Held that the order is not illegal. (Paras 4-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order passed by the Magistrate issuing process under Section 204 of CrPC is illegal for lack of application of mind, given that it is a one-paragraph order.
Final Decision
The court dismissed the petition, upholding the Magistrate's order dated 7.11.2014 issuing process against the petitioner.
Law Points
- Magistrate need not write detailed order while issuing process
- short order summarizing reasons sufficient
- order must reflect application of mind to facts and documents
Case Details
2018 LawText (BOM) (09) 114
Criminal Application (APL) No.22 of 2017
Petitioner inperson, Shri M.K. Joharapurkar for Respondent No.1, Shri B.M. Lonare, Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.2
Pramod Kumar s/o. Harishchandra Agrawal
Ashish s/o. Niranjanlal Agrawal, State of Maharashtra
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal application challenging the order of Magistrate issuing process under Section 204 CrPC.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of the Magistrate's order dated 7.11.2014 issuing process against him.
Filing Reason
Petitioner contended that the Magistrate's order was illegal as it did not reflect application of mind.
Previous Decisions
Magistrate passed order on 7.11.2014 issuing process against the petitioner.
Issues
Whether the Magistrate's order issuing process is illegal for lack of application of mind?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the Magistrate's order, though brief, considered the complaint, documents, and court orders, thus reflecting application of mind.
Respondent No.1 argued that the order was passed without judicial application of mind and relied on Supreme Court precedents.
Ratio Decidendi
While issuing process under Section 204 CrPC, the Magistrate need not write a detailed order; a short order summarizing reasons is sufficient, provided it reflects application of mind to the facts and documents. The Magistrate's order in this case, though one paragraph, mentioned consideration of the complaint, documents, and court orders, indicating proper application of mind.
Judgment Excerpts
The impugned order is illegal for the reason that it is well settled law that while issuing process, the Magistrate has to apply his mind to the facts of the case and decide if any prima facie case is made out or not, though it is not necessary for the Magistrate to write a detailed order.
A short order giving a summary of the reasons is enough in such a case and this is exactly what the learned Magistrate has done in the present case.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed Criminal Application (APL) No.22 of 2017 before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, challenging the order dated 7.11.2014 passed by the Magistrate issuing process against him. The court heard the parties and dismissed the petition on 10.09.2018.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): Section 204
