Allowed

Vinay Singh Yadav and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC11 Aug 2021A482/10021/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed a cognizance and summoning order passed in a criminal case for failing to apply judicial mind. The order was mechanically filled on a proforma. The Court directed the Magistrate to pass a fresh order after judicial consideration within two months.

What did the court decide?

The impugned cognizance/summoning order is quashed. The Judicial Magistrate is directed to pass a fresh order applying judicial mind within two months.

Vinay Singh Yadav and Another Vs State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 88

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10021 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Vinay Singh Yadav And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pawan Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Pawan Shukla, learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants for quashing of further proceeding of Case Crime No.0200 of 2020, (State Vs. Vishun Dayal Yadav and others) under Section 420, 406, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Saifai, District Etawah pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etawah.

¶7

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that impugned cognizance/summoning order dated 21.1.2021 has been passed on a printed proforma by filling the blanks and it has been passed without application of judicial mind and as such, it is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Ankit Vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in 2009(9) ADJ page 778 .

¶8

On the basis of aforesaid judgment, it has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that summoning of accused in criminal case is a serious matter and the order impugned reflects that the Magistrate had not applied his judicial mind, as in the present case the impugned cognizance/summoning order has been passed on a printed proforma, which clearly indicates that the same has been passed without applying judicial mind and the learned Magistrate only put his signature at the bottom of order.

¶9

On the other hand, learned AGA has submitted that summoning order has been passed by the learned Magistrate after considering the material which are available on record, but he could not dispute the fact that the order taking cognizance has been passed on the printed proforma.

¶10

The present case is finally decided at the admission stage itself without issuing notice to the opposite party no.2.

¶11

From bare perusal of impugned cognizance/summoning order, it is apparent that it has been passed on a printed proforma by filling the blanks and it appears that the blanks were filled up by

¶12

some staff of the Judicial Magistrate and the Judicial Magistrate has only put his initial at the bottom of summoning order.

¶13

The law on this point is well settled that prior to taking cognizance and issuing summons to the accused-persons, the Judicial Magistrate has to apply his judicial mind and that the cognizance/summoning order cannot be passed in a mechanical manner.

¶14

In view of above, since impugned cognizance/summoning order has been passed on a printed proforma by filling the blanks without application of judicial mind and as such, it is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

¶15

Accordingly the application under section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. The impugned cognizance/summoning order is hereby quashed.

¶16

Learned Judicial Magistrate is directed to pass a fresh order regarding cognizance as well as summoning of the applicants in the aforesaid case in accordance with law, after applying his judicial mind within a period of two months from the date of production of a copy of this order.

¶17

Order Date :- 11.8.2021 P.P.

Vinay Singh Yadav and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinay Singh Yadav and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajkumar @ Raja Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Pravesh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kuldeep Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another

Santosh and Another Vs State of U P and 4 Others

Mehtab Vs State of U.P.

Nanhku and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another