Allowed

Smt. Saeeda Begum and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC29 Nov 2021A482/14339/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicant challenged an order taking cognizance passed by the Magistrate under Sections 420, 406, 504, 506 IPC. The High Court held the order unsustainable as it was mechanical and lacked judicial mind. The matter is remanded to pass a fresh order.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of taking cognizance dated 28.6.2021 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Magistrate to pass a fresh order after applying judicial mind.

Smt. Saeeda Begum and 2 Others Vs State of U.P… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 77

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 14339 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Saeeda Begum And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Wasim Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Jagdish Prasad Mishra

¶4

Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶5

vkosndx.k ds fo}ku vf/koDrk] foi{kh la0 2 ds fo}ku vf/koDrk ,oa fo}ku vij 'kkldh; vf/koDrk mifLFkr gSaA

¶6

/kkjk 482 na0iz0la0 ds vUrxZr ;g vkosnu i=] eq0v0la0&719 lu~ 2020] vUrxZr /kkjk 420] 406] 504] 506 Hkk0na0fo0] Fkkuk dksrokyh uxj] ftyk eqtQQjuxj ls mnHkwr okn la0 2121@9 lu 2021] tks lh0ts0,e0] eqtQ~Qjuxj ds U;k;ky; esa yfEcr gS] rFkk blesa ikfjr rych vkns’k fn0 28&6&2021 ds fo:) nk;j fd;k x;k gSA

¶7

vkosndx.k ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dk dFku gS fd vkosndx.k ds fo:) mijksDr /kkjkvksa dk dksbZ vijk/k ugha curk gS] voj U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr izlaKku@rych vkns’k ,d izksQkekZ vkMZj gS] ftlesa fd ,d Nis&Nik, izksQkekZ ds vuq:i gkFk ls fy[kdj izlaKku@rych vkns’k ikfjr dj fn;k x;k gS] bl izdkj izlaKku@rych vkns’k ikfjr djus esa fo}ku voj U;k;ky; }kjk vius LoLFk efLr"d dk mi;ksx ugha fd;k x;k gS] blfy, mijksDr okn dh dk;Zokgh dks vikLr dj fn;k tk;A vius rdZ ds leFkZu esa mUgksaus mPp U;k;ky;] bykgkckn }kjk Vishnu Kumar Gupta and another Vs. State of U.P. and another 2020 (11) ADJ 615 esa ikfjr fof/k O;oLFkk dh vksj U;k;ky; dk /;ku vkd"V fd;k] ftlds izLrj 18 esa fuEufyf[kr rF; mn~/kr fd, x, gSa %&

¶8

This type of order has already been held unsustainable by this Court in the case of Ankit (supra) relying on in a number of decisions of the Apex Court. The relevant portion of the said decision, is extracted below:

¶9

"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

¶10

mind."(Emphasis supplied)

¶11

eSaus vkosndx.k ds fo}ku vf/koDrk ds rdksZ ds ifjizs{; esa i=koyh ,oa iz’uxr vkns’k dk ifj’khyu fd;kA

¶12

i=koyh ds ifj’khyu ls ,slk ik;k x;k fd lacaf/kr voj U;k;ky; }kjk iz’uxr vkns’k fizUVsM izksQkekZ ij ikfjr fd;k x;k gS] ftlesa dsoy frfFk Hkj nh x;h gS ,oa vkns’k ikfjr djus esa lacaf/kr eftLVzsV }kjk U;kf;d efLr"d dk iz;ksx ugha fd;k x;k gS] tks fd vkifRrtud gSA fdlh nkf.Md okn esa rych vkns’k fd;k tkuk ,d xaHkhj ekeyk gS] ftls fo}ku eftLVzsV }kjk cgqr gh lksp le>dj ml ij vius U;kf;d efLr"d ls vkns’k ikfjr djuk pkfg,A rn~uqlkj ;g /kkjk 482 na0iz0la0 ds vUrxZr nk;j ;g vkosnu i= vaxhdj.k ds Lrj ij gh Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gS rFkk mijksDr okn esa voj U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr izlaKku vkns’k fn0 28&6&2021 vikLr fd;k tkrk gS] ,oa izdj.k dks muds le{k bl funsZ’k ds lkFk izfrizsf"kr fd;k tkrk gS fd bl vkns’k esa mfYyf[kr fdlh Hkh fVIi.kh ds xq.k&nks"k ls izHkkfor gq, fcuk] i{kdkjksa dks lquokbZ dk leqfpr volj nsrs gq, ,oa i=koyh dk lE;d :is.k voyksdu djus ds mijkUr] izdj.k ij mfpr vkns’k ikfjr fd;k tk;A

¶13

dk;kZy; dks funsZ'k fn;k tkrk gS fd bl vkns'k dh ,d izfrfyfi lacaf/kr fopkj.k U;k;ky; dks vfoyEc Hkstuk lqfuf'pr djsA

¶14

fn0 % 29&11&2021 ds0lh0flag

¶15

2 of 2

Smt. Saeeda Begum and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Saeeda Begum and 2 Others 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

Raj Bahadur and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shrimati Maya Devi Vs Resumeof U.P.

Neeraj @ Neetu and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ali Zaheer Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ankit Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nikhil (Juvenile) Vs State of Up and Another