Quashed

Smt. Sunita ( Mother_in_ Law ) and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC17 Sept 2021A482/5081/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed a cognizance order passed by a Judicial Magistrate on a printed proforma without application of mind. The court directed the lower court to pass a fresh order applying judicial mind to the complaint.

What did the court decide?

The impugned cognizance order dated 17.02.2020 is quashed; the court below is directed to pass a fresh order.

Smt. Sunita ( Mother_in_ Law ) and 2… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 49

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5081 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Sunita ( Mother_In_ Law ) And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dinesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Dinesh Kumar, learned counsel for applicants and learned AGA for the State.

¶6

Sri Dinesh Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants submits that cognizance order dated 17.02.2020, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Etah in Case Crime No.11 of 2019 arising out of Criminal Case No.1738 of 2020, under Sections 498-A, 323 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, is on a printed proforma and reveals non-application of mind while taking cognizance of the offence..

¶7

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the learned Judicial Magistrate, Etah did not apply his judicial mind at the time of passing the cognizance order against the applicants 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 applicants 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-4 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 Judicial Magistrate, Etah 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 applicants 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 (supra), the impugned cognizance order dated 17.02.2020, is hereby quashed.

¶11

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 :- 17.9.2021 Ravi/-

Smt. Sunita ( Mother_in_ Law ) and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sunita ( Mother_in_ Law ) 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deepak and Others Vs State of U.P and Another

Rukhsar and Another Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Anjana Agrawal @ Anjani Agrawal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Chandan Arora Vs State of U.P. and Another

Deep Bhartiya and 16 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vikku Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another