Sheetoo @ Vinod Chaturvedi vs. State Of U.P. And Another

Held

The Court disposed of the application by granting liberty to the applicant to approach the Court again if he is summoned. The Court noted that the applicant had not been summoned as of the date of the final order. The explanation provided by the court below, via comments from the Additional District Judge, stated that the applicant was not summoned initially due to a stay on his arrest. Subsequently, after the charge-sheet was filed and the court realized the stay was operative only until the charge-sheet submission, a summon was issued. However, the Court's final order indicates that, as of that date, the applicant had still not been summoned. Therefore, the Court did not quash the proceedings but allowed the applicant to seek relief if and when he is formally summoned. The issue of the initial discrepancy was explained by the procedural circumstances, and the Court did not make a definitive finding on whether it vitiated the proceedings, instead opting for a pragmatic approach.

Facts

The applicant, Sheetoo @ Vinod Chaturvedi, filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash a charge-sheet and summoning order in a case under the U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, arising from a GST-related FIR. The applicant contended that while his name was mentioned in the cognizance order dated January 12, 2023, he was not summoned in the subsequent summoning order of the same date. The High Court, by an order dated May 22, 2023, directed the acquisition of comments from the concerned court regarding this discrepancy and granted interim protection against coercive action. In compliance, comments were submitted, explaining that the applicant was not summoned initially due to the stay on arrest, but a summon was issued after February 9, 2023, once the court became aware that the stay was operative only until the charge-sheet submission. The applicant had not been summoned as of the date of the final order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant's name appearing in the cognizance order but not in the summoning order, despite the same date, vitiates the proceedings against him? (Question of law and fact, concerning procedural fairness and due process). Arguments for the Applicant: The applicant argued that the discrepancy between the cognizance order and the summoning order, where his name was mentioned in the former but he was not summoned in the latter, indicated a procedural flaw. He relied on the principle that a person must be formally summoned to face proceedings. Arguments for the Revenue/State: The State's counsel did not present specific arguments on the merits of the applicant's claim regarding the discrepancy. However, the subsequent explanation provided by the court below, through comments, indicated that the non-summoning was due to an interim order staying arrest, and a summon was issued later after the charge-sheet was filed and the stay's operative period expired.