The High Court invoked inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash a cognizance order that was passed on a printed proforma without specific allegations, citing a prior Bench decision prohibiting such practice. The order was partly allowed.
Quashed the impugned cognizance order dated 28.09.2019.
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. - 73 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7689 of 2022 Applicant :- Ravi Babu Maurya Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
By means of this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant seeks to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash the charge-sheet no. 26/2019 dated 10.02.2019, cognizance/summoning order dated 28.09.2019 and the criminal proceeding of Case Crime No. 0682 of 2018, Case No. 3057 of 2019 (State Vs. Raavi Babu Maurya), under section 376, 377, 506, 323 I.P.C., P.S. Prem Nagar, District Bareilly, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.-2, Bareilly.
It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the cognizance order has been passed on a printed proforma just by filling up the blanks, which shows that the officer concerned neither went through the documents nor applied his mind while passing the order, so the prayer is made to quash the cognizance order dated 28.09.2019.
Learned A.G.A. does not dispute the aforesaid legal position.
A perusal of the record clearly shows that the cognizance order dated 28.09.2019 has been passed on a printed proforma after filling up the names of the accused and sections of the offence, no specific allegation assigning to the accused has been mentioned.
The Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 16386 of 2020 (Shiv Kumar Verma and another Vs. State of U.P. and others) decided on 11.06.2021 has prohibited such type of practice. Thus, the cognizance order dated 28.09.2019 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.-2, Bareilly is hereby quashed with the direction to the court concerned to pass a specific speaking order in this regard.
The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is, however, partly allowed.
Order Date :- 8.6.2022 /Bhanu
Digitally signed by BHANU PRATAP KUSHWAHA Date: 2022.06.10 15:25:17 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the cognizance order passed on a proforma without specific allegations is valid.
Whether Section 482 Cr.P.C. ought to be invoked to quash the cognizance order.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Shiv Kumar Verma and another Vs. State of U.P. and othersApplied¶7
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 16386 of 2020 (Shiv Kumar Verma and another Vs. State of U.P. and others)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ravi Babu Maurya
Sadhna Rani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
