Uttarakhand High Court
Criminal Procedure and EvidenceCriminal Law

A summoning order must reflect independent consideration of the distinct allegations against each accused.

NARENDRA AND OTHERS vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

Uttarakhand High CourtJUDGMENT: October 14, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
A summoning order must reflect independent consideration of the distinct allegations against each accused.. NARENDRA AND OTHERS vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND. Uttarakhand High Court. LawLens
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

The applicants sought to quash the charge-sheet and the cognizance/summoning order dated 5 April 2023 in Criminal Case No. 182 of 2023.

Source reference: para. 3–7

The investigating officer had charge-sheeted applicant No. 1 under Sections 323, 452, 504, 506 and 120-B IPC, but applicants Nos. 2–4 only under Sections 504, 506 and 120-B IPC.

Source reference: para. 3–7

The Magistrate nevertheless summoned all four applicants for all five offences.

Source reference: para. 3–7

The State did not dispute this discrepancy.

Source reference: para. 7
02

Issues

1. Whether the Magistrate’s order summoning all applicants for Sections 323, 452, 504, 506 and 120-B IPC, despite the charge-sheet specifying different offences for applicants Nos. 2–4, reflected due application of judicial mind.

Source reference: para. 9–10

2. Whether the Magistrate was bound by the offences specified in the charge-sheet when deciding whether to take cognizance.

Source reference: para. 10
03

Law Applied

A Magistrate must independently apply judicial mind to the material collected during investigation and is not bound by the offences specified in the charge-sheet; the Magistrate may take cognizance of any offence disclosed by the available material, in accordance with law.

Source reference: para. 10; para. 11

The Court referred to Sections 323, 452, 504, 506 and 120-B IPC as the offences at issue.

Source reference: para. 3–5
04

Reasoning

The charge-sheet distinguished between the offences attributed to applicant No. 1 and those attributed to applicants Nos. 2–4, while the summoning order applied all five offences to every applicant.

Source reference: para. 9

Although the Magistrate was not bound by the charge-sheet’s classification, the order did not show that the distinct allegations against each applicant had been considered.

Source reference: para. 10

The discrepancy therefore warranted reconsideration through a fresh, reasoned order, without limiting the Magistrate’s authority to take cognizance of any offence supported by the record.

Source reference: para. 10–11
05

Holding

The Court allowed the application and set aside the cognizance/summoning order dated 5 April 2023 in Criminal Case No. 182 of 2023.

It remitted the matter to the Judicial Magistrate, Rishikesh, to reconsider the charge-sheet and investigation material, apply judicial mind, and pass a fresh, reasoned order in accordance with law.

Source reference: para. 11

Pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.

Source reference: para. 13
06

Acts & Sections Cited

4 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.

Uttarakhand High Court

Original Court PDF

NARENDRA AND OTHERSvsSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND

Uttarakhand High Court · October 14, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment