Single judge allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash a summoning order because it was mechanically passed via a printed proforma without applying judicial mind, relying on Supreme Court precedents.
The impugned summoning order dated 29.09.2020 was quashed and the applicants court directed to pass a fresh order within one month.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 79
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1393 of 2021
Applicant :- Virendra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sandeep Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. Seema Shukla, learned A.G.A. for the State. Perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the impugned summoning order dated 29.09.2020 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat in Complaint Case No. 3578 of 2020 (State of U.P. v. Virendra), under Section 4/21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, Police Station Doghat, District Baghpat.
It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the concerned Judicial Magistrate did not apply his judicial mind at the time of passing the summoning order dated 29.09.2020 as the impugned summoning order has been passed on a printed proforma, only the blanks have been filled up, which is not permissible under the law. A certified copy of the impugned summoning order is annexed as Annexure-3 to the affidavit.
Elaborating his submissions, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that in the printed proforma only the name of the applicant, the date of the order and date of summons have been filled by hand. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the court below while summoning the applicant has materially erred and did not follow the dictum of law as propounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various cases that summoning in criminal case is a serious matter and the court below without dwelling the material and visualizing the case on the touchstone of probability should not summon accused persons to face the trial.
Learned counsel for the applicant has confined his argument only to the extent that the impugned summoning order is a proforma based order and the same has been passed without applying his judicial mind, therefore, is illegal and liable to be quashed.
On the other hand, learned AGA has opposed the present
application made by learned counsel for the applicant but could not dispute the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant.
The arguments advanced on behalf of the applicant have substance. The use of proforma in passing the judicial order is not proper and the order of summoning the applicant has been passed without application of mind.
In the case of Fakhruddin Ahmad Vs. State of Uttranchal and another, (2008) 17 SCC 157, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that being an expression of indefinite import, it is neither practicable nor desirable to precisely define as to what is meant by "taking cognizance". Nevertheless, it is well settled that before a Magistrate can be said to have taken cognizance of an offence, it is imperative that he must have taken notice of the accusations and applied his mind to the allegations made in the complaint or in the police report or the information received from a source other than a police report, as the case may be, and the material filed therewith. It needs title emphasis that it is only when the Magistrate applies his mind and is satisfied that the allegations, if proved, would constitute an offence and decides to initiate proceedings against the alleged offender, that it can be positively stated that he has taken cognizance of the offence. Cognizance is in regard to the offence and not the offender.
This Court in the case of Ankit Vs. State of U.P. and another, [2009 (9) ADJ 778], while relying upon a number of decisions of the Apex Court has held as under:
"Although as held by this Court in the case of Megh Nath Guptas & Anr V State of U.P. And Anr, 2008 (62) ACC 826, in which reference has been made to the cases of Deputy Chief Controller Import and Export Vs Roshan Lal Agarwal, 2003 (4) ACC 686 (SC), UP Pollution Control Board Vs Mohan Meakins, 2000 (2) JIC 159 (SC): AIR 2000 SC 1456 and Kanti Bhadra Vs State of West Bengal, 2000 (1) JIC 751 (SC): 2000 (40) ACC 441 (SC), the Magistrate is not required to pass detailed reasoned order at the time of taking cognizance on the charge sheet, but it does not mean that order of taking cognizance can be passed by filling up the blanks on printed proforma. At the time of passing any judicial order including the order taking cognizance on the charge sheet, the Court is required to apply judicial mind and even the order of taking cognizance cannot be passed in mechanical manner. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and the matter has to be sent back to the Court below for passing fresh order on the charge sheet after applying judicial mind." (Emphasis
supplied)
The summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter and the order must reflect that Magistrate had applied his mind to the facts as well as law applicable thereto.
In light of the judgments referred to above, it is explicitly clear that the order dated 29.09.2020 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bagpat does not stand the test of the law laid down by the Apex Court.
Accordingly, the impugned summoning order dated 29.09.2020 is hereby quashed. The court concerned is directed to pass a fresh order on the complaint, preferably within a period of one month from the date of production of a copy of this order.
With the above direction, the application stands allowed.
Order Date :- 19.1.2021 SKT/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a summoning order passed by merely filling blanks on a printed proforma without applying judicial mind can be sustained.
Whether the lower court materialized the requirement of applying judicial mind while summoning the accused.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Fakhruddin Ahmad Vs. State of Uttranchal and anotherRelied on¶13
Fakhruddin Ahmad Vs. State of Uttranchal and another, (2008) 17 SCC 157 · Who else cites this
Ankit Vs. State of U.P. and anotherRelied on¶14
Ankit Vs. State of U.P. and another, [2009 (9) ADJ 778]
Megh Nath Guptas & Anr V State of U.P. And AnrReferred¶15
Megh Nath Guptas & Anr V State of U.P. And Anr, 2008 (62) ACC 826
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Virendra
State of U.P.
Vivek Varma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
