Allowed

Narendra Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC10 Feb 2022A482/3117/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash a judgment dated 6.7.2017. The court held that a magisterial order taking cognizance, passed merely by filling blanks on a printed proforma, is illegal and improper. Consequently, the cognizance order was quashed.

What did the court decide?

Cognizance order dated 06.07.2017 quashed; lower court directed to pass a fresh order regarding cognizance.

Narendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 34

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3117 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Narendra Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sudhir Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Alok Mishra

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the opp. party nos. 2 and 3 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

This application has been filed by the applicant for quashing the charge-sheet dated 13.6.2015 as well as cognizance order dated 6.7.2017 and the entire proceeding of case no. 516 of 2017, State of U.P. Vs. Narendra Singh, arising out of the case crime no. 85 of 2015, under section 138 Electricity Act, 2003, police station Sakeet District Etah, pending in the court of learned Special Judge Electricity Act, Etah.

¶7

It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that he has moved a compounding application on 7.7.2015 but the same has not been decided yet. He has further argued that cognizance order dated 6.7.2017 has been passed on a printing proforma which is against the provisions of law, hence the cognizance order is liable to set aside on this ground alone.

¶8

However, learned counsel for the opp. parties has argued that as the cognizance order has been passed on a printed proforma this alone cannot be a ground for setting aside the cognizance order.

¶9

As per the applicant, his compounding application is still pending with the opp. party nos. 2 and 3. The opp. party nos. 2 and 3 are directed to decide the said application as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order before them.

¶10

So far as the argument that the cognizance has been taken on a printed proforma is concerned, although it has been held by this Court in the case of Megh Nath Gupta & another Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2008 (62) ACC 826 that the Magistrate is not required to pass detailed reasoned order at the time of taking cognizance on the charge-sheet, but it does not mean that order of taking cognizance can be passed by filling up the blanks on printed proforma. At the time of passing any judicial order including the order taking cognizance on the charge-sheet,

¶11

the court is required to apply its judicial mind and even the order of taking cognizance cannot be passed in mechanical manner. Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Harischandra Prasad Mani and others Vs. State of Jharkhand and another (2007) 15 Supreme Court Cases 494, Fakhruddin Ahmad Vs. State of Uttaranchal and another (2008) 17 Supreme Court Cases 157 and Ankit Vs. State of U.P. and others, U.P. Criminal Report 2009 (3) 427 has established that if the order on printed proforma is passed it establishes that the Magistrate concerned has not applied his mind to the evidence on record in order to take cognizance of the offence concerned.

¶12

In the present case also the cognizance order has been passed by the Magistrate concerned on a printed proforma just by putting his initial on the order which clearly shows that the Magistrate concerned has not applied his judicial mind and has not gone through the material collected by the Investigating Officer against the applicant in the case.

¶13

The result is that the order impugned dated 06.07.2017, which has been passed by filling the blanks on the printed proforma is illegal, incorrect and improper, which cannot be sustained. Hence, the cognizance order dated 06.07.2017 is liable to be quashed.

¶14

The cognizance order dated 06.07.2017 is hereby quashed. The lower court is directed to pass a fresh order regarding cognizance as per law.

¶15

The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of accordingly.

¶16

Order Date :- 10.2.2022 Gss

¶17

Digitally signed by GIRAJA SHANKER SHARMA Date: 2022.02.11 15:01:10 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Narendra Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narendra Singh 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

Muralitharam Vs State of U.P.

Rais Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Saurabh and Another Vs State of U.P and Another

Vikram Singh Vs State of U.P.and Another

Krishna Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sharda Prasad @ Sharda Prasad Singh and 13 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another