Allowed

Sri Nivas and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC17 Feb 2022A482/3778/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. sought quashing of a cognizance order and charge-sheet. The High Court held that the cognizance order, passed mechanically by filling blanks on a printed proforma without applying judicial mind, was illegal and improper, and quashed it.

What did the court decide?

Cognizance order dated 25.06.2019 is quashed; lower court directed to pass fresh order on record.

Sri Nivas and Another Vs State of U.P. and… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 90

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3778 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Sri Nivas And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ashutosh Kumar Mishra,Ramanuj Tiwari

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

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

¶6

By means of this application under section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicants have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash the cognizance order dated 25.06.2019 in Case No.494 of 2019 and charge-sheet dated 24.02.2019 arising out of Case Crime No.0261 of 2018, under Sections 420, 408 I.P.C., Police Station Sikandararau, District Hathras, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Sikandararau, District Hathras.

¶7

It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that the amount, which is said to be wrongly transferred by the Bank employee after enquiry has been deducted from the applicants' gratuity etc at the time of their retirement, hence, the grievance of the bank has been made good. The amount of the loss has been recovered from the accounts of applicants and other employees of the bank so the charge-sheet be quashed. Alternatively, the prayer to quash the cognizance order is also made on the ground that it has been passed on a printed proforma by filling the blanks, which shows that the magistrate concerned has not applied his judicial mind while passing the order, so it cannot be said to be a lawful order in the eyes of law, hence, the same be quashed.

¶8

So far as the argument that the cognizance order has been passed 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, 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

¶9

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.

¶10

In the present case also the cognizance order has been passed by the Magistrate concerned on a printed proforma just by putting his initials 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 applicants in the case.

¶11

Resultantly the order impugned dated 25.06.2019, 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 25.06.2019 is liable to be quashed.

¶12

The cognizance order dated 25.06.2019 is hereby quashed. The lower court is directed to pass a fresh order regarding cognizance on the basis of charge-sheet and other evidence on record, as per law.

¶13

The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed only to the extend of quashing of cognizance order.

¶14

Order Date :- 17.2.2022 Radhika

¶15

Digitally signed by RADHIKA VISHWAKARMA Date: 2022.02.19 13:46:05 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sri Nivas and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Nivas 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

Firoz Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Subham Shukla and 10 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Muniram Thekedar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Utkarsh Arya Vs State of U.P.and Another

Yashpal Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another