HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8974 of 2017 Court No. - 84 HON'BLE JAI PRAKASH TIWARI, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for opposite party and learned AGA for the State. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the summoning order dated 02.01.2017 as well as Complaint Case No.24/2017 arising out of Case Crime No.03 of 2016 under Section- 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 Police Station- Railway Post Rampur. Brief facts of the case are that a tender for the purchase of 210 Eucalyptus and other trees was published by the Railway Authority and the Applicant No. 1 participated in the said tender process, and his bid was the highest among all participants. Thereafter, the Divisional Engineer-III, Northern Railway, Moradabad, accepted the bid of applicant No. 1 and on 22.07.2016 issued an acceptance letter in his favour. In pursuance of the said letter, applicant No. 1 has deposited a sum of Rs.14,40,000/- along with applicable taxes before the concerned authority. Subsequently, the Divisional Engineer-III, Northern Railway, Moradabad, issued a delivery letter in favour of applicant No. 1, specifying that the dates for delivery of the trees were 10.11.2016, 12.11.2016, and 17.11.2016. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicants that applicant No. 1 is the auction purchaser of Eucalyptus and other trees. It is further argued Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Shravan Kumar Pandey, Shyam Narain Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : A.S.G.I., G.A., Pranjal Mehrotra, Satish Kumar Rai Umesh Chandra And 2 Others .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s) that on 09.11.2016, applicant Nos. 2 and 3 were collecting the trees on a tractor; however, they were wrongly arrested by the police of Railway Post, Rampur. It is further argued that the police party lodged an FIR, registered as Case Crime No. 03 of 2016. The said FIR was challenged by applicant No. 1 before this Hon’ble Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 24835 of 2016 (Umesh Chandra (Om) vs. State of U.P. and Others), and vide order dated 07.12.2016, the said FIR was quashed, with the observation that the offence under Section 5 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 is a non cognizable hence no F.I.R. can be registered and only a complaint as defined under Section 2 (d) Cr.P.C, can be registered. It is also argued that opposite party No. 2 had filed a complaint on 21.11.2016, against the applicants with regard to the aforesaid incident. It is further argued that applicant No.1 moved an application dated 21.11.2016 before the concerned authority seeking information regarding the alleged wood seized by the R.P.F., Rampur, on 09.11.2016. A reply to the said application was provided by the authorities on 29.11.2016, wherein it was clearly mentioned that the said wood had been purchased by the contractor, i.e., applicant No. 1, through auction. It is further argued that the applicants have not stolen any property of the Railway Department, and that the Railways have wrongly filed the complaint against them. It is lastly argued that the learned Magistrate failed to consider the true facts of the case and has wrongly summoned the applicants. Learned AGA and learned counsel for opposite party have opposed the aforesaid submission with the contention that the Divisional Engineer- III, Northern Railway, Moradabad, has issued a delivery letter in favour of the applicant no.1 mentioning the date of delivery of trees was 10.11.2016, 12.11.2016 and 17.11.2016 but the applicant nos. 2 & 4 had arrested by the police on 09.11.2016 while collecting the woods. In light of this legal position, I have gone through the impugned order. A perusal of summoning order indicates that learned Magistrate had written nothing, concerning the facts of the case. The accused person of complaint were summoned for offences mentioned in that application. No reason was mentioned in the impugned order, and the same clearly lacks the reflection of application of judicial discretion or mind. Nothing is A482 No. 8974 of 2017 2 there which may show that learned Magistrate, before passing the order which is under challenged had considered facts of the case and evidence or law. Therefore, it appears that, in fact, no judicial mind was applied before passing of impugned order of summoning. Such order cannot be accepted as a proper legal judicial order passed after following due procedure of law. In the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of M/s. Pepsi Food Ltd. & another vs. Special Judicial Magistrate & others, 1998 UPCrR 118, it is clearly mentioned that summoning of an accused is a serious matter and while summoning an accused, the court has to see prima facie evidence. Relevant paragraph of the said judgment is quoted as under:- "Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning the accused. Magistrate had to carefully scrutinize the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused." The judgement passed by this Court in the case of Smt. Shiv Kumar and others vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in 2017 (2) JIC, 589, (All) (LB). Paragraph No. 10 of the aforesaid judgement is relevant for the controversy in hand. The same is as under:- A482 No. 8974 of 2017 3 "Learned Magistrate was required to atleast mention in the order about the prima facie satisfaction for summoning the accused. The order must reflect that the learned Magistrate has exercised his jurisdiction in accordance with law after satisfying himself about the prima facie allegations made in the complaint. The accused cannot be summoned mechanically merely by writing that perused the statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr. P. C." Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case and upon the perusal of material on record, it appears from the letter dated 29.11.2016, issued by the Section Engineer (Work) Northern Raiway, Bareilly that the seized woods belongs to the trees which were auctioned and purchased by applicant no.1. In the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Anita Malhotra v. Apparel Export Promotion Council, (2012) 1 SCC 520, it is held that to secure the ends of justice, the High Court can look into reliable material placed by the accused at the threshold stage, even without a full trial. Relevant paragraph of the judgment is quoted as under:- "As rightly stated so, though it is not proper for the High Court to consider the defence of the accused or conduct a roving enquiry in respect of merits of the accusation, but if on the face of the document which is beyond suspicion or doubt, placed by the accused and if it is considered that the accusation against her cannot stand, in such a matter, in order to prevent injustice or abuse of process, it is incumbent on the High Court to look into those document/documents which have a bearing on the matter even at the initial stage and grant relief to the person concerned by exercising jurisdiction u/s 482 of the Code." In the light of the judgements referred to above, it is explicitly clear that the impugned summoning order passed by Court below is cryptic and does not stand the test laid down by this Court. Accordingly, the present application succeeds and is allowed. The A482 No. 8974 of 2017 4 impugned summoning order dated 02.01.2017 is hereby set-aside and the matter requires reconsideration. The present application is, accordingly, succeeds. The case is remanded back to the concerned learned Magistrate with direction to pass afresh reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with law . April 7, 2026 S.K. A482 No. 8974 of 2017 5 (Jai Prakash Tiwari,J.) Digitally signed by :- SWEETY KANOJIA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- SWEETY KANOJIA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad