Allowed

Rishipal v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC6 Aug 2021A482/5973/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a s.482 Cr.P.C. application, the High Court quashed the charge-sheet and cognizance order passed by a Magistrate. The court held the order was unsustainable as it was mechanically passed in a printed proforma by staff without the Magistrate applying his judicial mind, evidenced by only his initial at the bottom.

What did the court decide?

Impugned cognizance/summoning order dated 21.5.2020 is quashed. Magistrate directed to pass fresh order applying judicial mind within two months.

Rishipal Vs State of U.P. and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 88

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5973 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Rishipal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed by learned Counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri Sushil Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant for quashing the charge-sheet dated 19.5.2020 as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 21.5.2020 and entire proceedings of Special Case No.10 of 2020 (State Vs. Rishipal Rana) arising out of Case Crime No.44 of 2020, under Sections 420, 406, 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)(V)A of S.C./S.T. Act, P.S. Jhinjhana, District Shamli.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that impugned cognizance/summoning order has been passed on a printed proforma by filling the blanks and it has been passed without application of judicial mind and as such, it is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Ankit Vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in 2009(9) ADJ page 778.

¶9

On the basis of aforesaid judgment, it has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that summoning of accused in criminal case is a serious matter and the order impugned reflects that the Magistrate had not applied his judicial mind, as in the present case the impugned cognizance/ summoning order has been passed on a printed proforma, which clearly indicates that the same has been passed without applying judicial mind and the learned Magistrate only put his signature at the bottom of order.

¶10

On the other hand, learned AGA has submitted that summoning order has been passed by the learned Magistrate after considering the material which are available on record, but he could not dispute the fact that the order taking cognizance has

¶11

been passed on the printed proforma.

¶12

The present case is finally decided at the admission stage itself without issuing notice to the opposite party no.2.

¶13

From bare perusal of impugned cognizance/summoning order, it is apparent that it has been passed on a printed proforma by filling the blanks and it appears that the blanks were filled up by some staff of the concerned Magistrate and the concerned Magistrate has only put his initial at the bottom of summoning order.

¶14

The law on this point is well settled that prior to taking cognizance and issuing summons to the accused-persons, the concerned Magistrate has to apply his judicial mind and that the cognizance/ summoning order cannot be passed in a mechanical manner.

¶15

In view of above, since impugned cognizance/summoning order has been passed on a printed proforma by filling the blanks without application of judicial mind and as such, it is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

¶16

Accordingly the application under section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed . The impugned cognizance/ summoning order dated 21.5.2020 is hereby quashed.

¶17

The concerned Magistrate is directed to pass a fresh order regarding cognizance as well as summoning of the applicant in the aforesaid case in accordance with law, after applying its judicial mind within a period of two months from the date of production of a copy of this order.

¶18

Order Date :- 6.8.2021 S. Singh

Rishipal v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rishipal 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

Smt. Goma and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Faim and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohammad Istyak @ Istak and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Chandra Prakash Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Surendra Yadav and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Hosiyar Singh and 4 Others Vs State of U.P.