Quashed

Rashid Quraishi and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC2 Sept 2021A482/8084/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held that a cognizance order passed mechanically by filling blanks on a printed proforma without applying judicial mind is impermissible and was quashed under Section 482 CrPC, directing a fresh order.

What did the court decide?

The impugned cognizance order dated 17.10.2020 is quashed. The learned court below is directed to pass a fresh order after applying judicial mind.

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

¶1

Court No. - 49

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8084 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Rashid Quraishi And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.

¶5

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

¶6

Sri Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh submits that cognizance order dated 17.10.2020, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Amroha in Criminal Case No. 2109 of 2020 (State vs. Rashid and Another) arising out of Case Crime No. 58 of 2020 under Sections 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, Police StationBachhraun, District-Amroha, is on a printed proforma and reveals that non-application of mind while taking cognizance of the offence.

¶7

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Amroha did not apply his judicial mind at the time of passing the cognizance order against the applicant 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 applicant 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-6 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 Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Amroha 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 applicant has substance. The use of blanks printed proforma in passing judicial order is not proper and the order of cognizance against 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 Vs. State of U.P. & Another (supra), the impugned cognizance order dated

¶11

17.10.2020, is hereby quashed. 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 :- 2.9.2021 Vikram/-

Rashid Quraishi and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rashid Quraishi and Another 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

Ramesh Chandra Pal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sagar Mindrani and 4 Others Vs State of U.P and Another

Prem Kumar Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Pravin and 2 Others Vs State of Up and Another

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

Maniram and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another