Allowed

Anil Gupta and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC13 Aug 2021A482/6839/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an impugned cognizance/summoning order dated 19.08.2019. The order was passed on a printed proforma filled by staff without the magistrate applying his judicial mind, rendering it unsustainable in law.

What did the court decide?

The impugned cognizance/summoning order dated 19.08.2019 is quashed, and the concerned Magistrate is directed to pass a fresh order within two months applying judicial mind.

Anil Gupta and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 88

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6839 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Anil Gupta And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Hitesh Pachori Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Hitesh Pachori, learned counsel for the applicants 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 applicants for quashing the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.47136 of 2019, (State Vs. Hariom Gupta and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 0214 of 2019, under Section 506 IPC, Police Station New Agra, District Agra pending before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Agra as well as charge-sheet dated 14.08.2020 and cognizance/summoning order dated 19.08.2019 passed in the aforesaid case.

¶7

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants 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 applicants 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 applicants 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.

¶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 been passed on the printed proforma.

¶10

The present case is finally decided at the admission stage itself

¶11

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 concerned Magistrate and the concerned 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-persons, the concerned 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 dated 19.08.2019 is hereby quashed.

¶16

The concerned Magistrate is directed to pass a fresh order regarding cognizance as well as summoning of the applicants 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 :- 13.8.2021 S.Ali

Anil Gupta and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Gupta 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

Shahabuddin Ahmad @ Sameer Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Nurul Ain Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Abhishek Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anas Vs State of U.P. and Another

Saurav Urf Gaurav Vs State of U.P. and Another