Quashed

Jawahar Rajpoot v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC1 Sept 2021A482/13116/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court quashed a summoning order dated 15.07.2019 on the ground that it was mechanically passed by filling in a printed proforma without the application of the judicial mind. The Court-directed the lower court to issue a fresh order.

What did the court decide?

Impugned summoning order dated 15.07.2019 quashed; lower court directed to pass fresh order.

Jawahar Rajpoot Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 49

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13116 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Jawahar Rajpoot Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Surat Patel Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.

¶5

Sri Mirza Ali Zulfikar, learned counsel for the applicant submits that summoning order dated 15.07.2019 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun at Urai in Case No.3511 of 2019 arising out of Case Crime No.401 of 2019, under Section 3/13 the Public Gambling Act, 1867, Police Station-Kotwali Urai, District-Jalaun is mechanical and has been issued in a pre-typed/printed proforma without any application of mind. He places reliance on the decision of this Court in Application U/S 438 No. 5525 of 2020 and 13883 of 2020 and prays for quashing of the summoning order.

¶6

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the Judicial Magistrate did not apply his judicial mind at the time of passing the summoning order against the applicant as the impugned summoning order has been passed on a printed proforma, which is not permissible under law. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment in the case of Ankit Vs. State of U.P. & Another; 2009 (9) ADJ 778 .

¶7

Certified copy of the impugned summoning order is annexed as Annexure-3 to the affidavit, which goes to show that the order has been passed on a printed proforma by filling up the blanks. Blanks on the printed proforma appear to have been filled by the court employee. Learned Magistrate has simply put his initial over his name without applying his judicial mind before passing the said order.

¶8

The argument advanced on behalf of applicant has substance. The use of blanks printed proforma in passing the judicial order is not proper and the order of summoning the applicant has been passed without application of judicial mind.

¶9

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, stated above and the law laid down in case of Ankit Vs. State of U.P. & another (supra) , the impugned summoning order dated 15.07.2019, is hereby quashed. Learned court below is directed to pass a fresh order on the complaint after applying his judicial mind.

¶10

In above terms, Application is allowed/disposed off.

¶11

Order Date :- 1.9.2021 Atul

Jawahar Rajpoot v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jawahar Rajpoot 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

Jitendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shanti Darshan Vs State of U.P.

Rajnish Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Smt. Ramawati Devi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Maya Shanker Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anjum Parvez Vs State of U.P.