Allowed

Ram Prakash @ Ram Prakash Chaudhari v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC18 Aug 2021A482/6585/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash a cognizance/summoning order. Relying on Ankit case, the single-judge bench held that the order was passed mechanically on a printed proforma without judicial mind, rendering it unsustainable in law.

What did the court decide?

Impugned cognizance/summoning order quashed; fresh order to be passed by Judicial Magistrate with application of judicial mind within two months.

Ram Prakash @ Ram Prakash Chaudhari Vs State of U.P. and… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 88

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6585 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Ram Prakash @ Ram Prakash Chaudhari Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dileep Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,M J Akhtar

¶4

Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Dileep Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri M.J. Akhtar, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant for quashing the cognizance order dated 06.1.2021 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kushinagar at Padarauna as well as entire proceedings of Case No.189 of 2021 (State Vs. Ram Prakash) arising out of Case Crime No.124 of 2020, under Sections 147, 323, 325, 504, 506, 452, 188, 269, 308 IPC and section 51 (b) Disaster Management Act, Police Station Khadda, District Kushinagar pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kushinagar at Padaurana.

¶7

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.

¶8

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 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.

¶9

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

¶10

been passed on the printed proforma.

¶11

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

¶12

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 Judicial Magistrate and the Judicial Magistrate has only put his initial at the bottom of summoning order.

¶13

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

¶14

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.

¶15

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

¶16

Learned Judicial 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 his judicial mind within a period of two months from the date of production of a copy of this order.

¶17

Order Date :- 18.8.2021

¶18

Tamang

Ram Prakash @ Ram Prakash Chaudhari v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Prakash @ Ram Prakash Chaudhari 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

Ashiq Ansari Vs State of Up and Another

Rajpal Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Om Prakash and 13 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shiv Prasad and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Masooq and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Km. Kusama and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others