The Allahabad High Court has held that a Magistrate can take cognizance and summon accused persons even when the police investigation has ended in a final report stating that no case is made out. The Court said the Magistrate is entitled to independently examine the material collected during investigation and decide whether a prima facie case exists.
Justice Sandeep Jain passed the ruling while allowing a petition filed by Jeetu Soni under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Background of the Case
The matter arose from an FIR lodged by Jeetu Soni at Bidhuna Police Station in Auraiya on March 18, 2015. The FIR named Satendra alias Chunmun and Narain and was registered under Section 307 of the IPC.
According to the prosecution version recorded in the judgment, Soni and his family members were returning home after closing their jewellery shop when the two accused allegedly approached on a red Pulsar motorcycle. A firearm was allegedly fired, causing an injury to Soni’s brother, Anil Soni.
The investigating officer subsequently submitted a final report. Soni opposed it through a protest petition. On January 10, 2019, the Judicial Magistrate, Auraiya declined to accept the final report, took cognizance under Section 190(1)(b) of the CrPC and summoned the two accused to face trial under Section 307 IPC.
Satendra challenged that order before the Sessions Court. The revisional court set aside the Magistrate’s order and sent the matter back for fresh consideration. Soni then approached the High Court.
Court’s Observation
Justice Sandeep Jain relied on several Supreme Court decisions, including Rakesh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Vishnu Kumar Tiwari v. State of U.P., Sonu Gupta v. Deepak Gupta and State of Gujarat v. Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta.
The High Court noted that a Magistrate is not bound by the conclusion reached by the investigating officer. Even where the police submit a report stating that no case is made out, the Magistrate can independently consider the material collected during investigation and take cognizance if the circumstances justify proceeding further.
"The Magistrate is neither required to consider the defence version, materials, or submissions advanced on behalf of the accused nor to undertake a detailed evaluation of the merits of the materials or evidence available on record," the Court observed while explaining the limited examination required at the stage of summoning.
The High Court found that the injury report recorded a firearm injury suffered by Anil Soni. His statement to police also referred to the alleged firing and identified Satendra alias Chunmun and Narain. The complainant Jeetu Soni's statement was stated to have corroborated the injured person's account.
The Court held that these materials were sufficient at the summoning stage to proceed under Section 307 IPC. It stressed that the defence case was not required to be adjudicated at that stage.
Decision
The High Court held that the Sessions Court had erred in interfering with the Magistrate's order.
It therefore set aside the Sessions Judge's order dated July 15, 2019, and affirmed the Judicial Magistrate's order dated January 10, 2019, summoning Satendra alias Chunmun and Narain to face trial under Section 307 IPC.
The petition under Article 227 was accordingly allowed.
Case Details
- Case Title: Jeetu Soni v. State of U.P. and 2 Others
- Case Number: Matters Under Article 227 No. 140 of 2020
- Judge: Justice Sandeep Jain
- Decision Date: September 1, 2026
-300x169.webp)