Allowed

Shareef Ahmad @ Shareef Kuraishi and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC4 Mar 2022A482/17123/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash a cognizance order passed mechanically on a printed proforma without applying judicial mind, relying on Ankit Vs. State of U.P. It directed a fresh order to be passed within two months.

What did the court decide?

Cognizance/summoning order dated 10.3.2021 quashed; Magistrate directed to pass a fresh order applying judicial mind within two months.

Shareef Ahmad @ Shareef Kuraishi and Another Vs State of… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 91

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17123 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Shareef Ahmad @ Shareef Kuraishi And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shreesh Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi,J.

¶5

Heard 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 for quashing the cognizance order dated 10.3.2021 passed by Judicial Magistrate Sambhal at Chandausi in Criminal Case No. 135 of 2021 (State Vs. Fahim Ahmad and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 50 of 2020, under section 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Sambhal as well as the entire proceeding of the aforementioned 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 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 applicants that summoning of accused in criminal case is a serious matter and the order impugned reflects that the Magistrate had not applied its 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 its 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 without issuing notice to the opposite party no.2.

¶11

From bare perusal of impugned cognizance/summoning order,

¶12

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 its 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 its 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 10.03.2021 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 its judicial mind within a period of two months from the date of production of a copy of this order.

¶17

Order Date :- 4.3.2022 Masarrat

¶18

Digitally signed by MASARRAT HUSAIN Date: 2022.03.04 14:28:48 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shareef Ahmad @ Shareef Kuraishi and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shareef Ahmad @ Shareef Kuraishi 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

Vijay Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P.

Jairam Maurya Vs State of U.P.and Another

Vipin Bihari Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mohammad Zaki Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajesh Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Maheshchandra Vs State of U.P. and 9 Others