The High Court quashed a summons and cognizance order dated 20.9.2018 passed on a printed proforma without judicial application of mind under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and directed a fresh order within two months.
Impugned cognizance and summoning order dated 20.9.2018 quashed; Magistrate directed to pass fresh order within two months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 88
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7234 of 2021
Applicant :- Hosiyar Singh And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kuldeep Singh Chahar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.
Heard Sri Kuldeep Singh Chahar, learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants for quashing the charge-sheet dated 9.7.2018 as well as entire proceedings of Case Crime No.292 of 2017 under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 332, 336,353 IPC, P.S. Fatehpur Sikari, District Agra.
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.
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.
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.
The present case is finally decided at the admission stage itself without issuing notice to the opposite party no.2.
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.
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.
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.
Accordingly the application under section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed . The impugned cognizance/ summoning order dated 20.9.2018 is hereby quashed.
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 its judicial mind within a period of two months from the date of production of a copy of this order.
Order Date :- 6.8.2021 S. Singh
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a cognizance/order under prosecution summons passed mechanically on a printed proforma without applying judicial mind can be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ankit Vs. State of U.P. and anotherReferred¶7
Ankit Vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in 2009(9) ADJ page 778
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Hosiyar Singh And 4 Others
State of U.P.
Vipin Chandra Dixit
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
