Quashed

Smt. Devanti Devi and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC13 Sept 2021A482/4820/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this application under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court quashed a cognizance order dated 3.10.2019 because it was passed on a printed proforma without the application of judicial mind by the Magistrate, directing a fresh order to be passed.

What did the court decide?

The impugned cognizance order dated 3.10.2019 is quashed and the lower court is directed to pass a fresh order applying judicial mind.

Smt. Devanti Devi and Another Vs State of U.P… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 49

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4820 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Devanti Devi And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Maurya Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.

¶5

Heard Rajesh Maurya, learned counsel for applicants and Sri Nagendra Srivastava, learned AGA for the State.

¶6

Sri Maurya submits that summoning/cognizance order dated 3.10.2019, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghazipur in Case Crime No. 1862 of 2019 as well as NCR No. 13 of 2018 under Sections 323, 504 IPC, police station - Shadiyabad, District Ghazipur is on a printed proforma and reveals non-application of mind while taking cognizance of the offence. 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 cognizance order.

¶7

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghazipur did not apply his judicial mind at the time of passing the cognizance order against the applicant as the impugned cognizance 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.

¶8

Certified copy of the impugned cognizance order is annexed as Annexure-1 of the supplementary 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. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghazipur has simply put his initial over his name without applying his judicial mind before passing the said order.

¶9

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 cognizance the applicant has been passed without application of judicial mind.

¶10

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.

¶11

& Another (supra), the impugned cognizance order dated 3.10.2019, is hereby quashed. Learned court below is directed to pass a fresh order on the complaint after applying his judicial mind.

¶12

In above terms, petition is disposed off.

¶13

Order Date :- 13.9.2021 S.K.S.

Smt. Devanti Devi and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Devanti Devi 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

Juhi Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sudha Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Suresh Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Asha Devi and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bhagya Chandra and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vinay Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another