Allowed

Mohammad Waseem v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC6 Jun 2022A482/8229/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge high court held that a printed proforma cognizance order mentioning wrong sections and omitting the accused name shows the magistrate did not apply judicial mind. Consequently, quashed the order and directed proper reconsideration.

What did the court decide?

The cognizance order dated 19.08.2020 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Hasanpur was quashed. The trial court directed to review the file and pass a correct order.

Mohammad Waseem Vs State of U.P. and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8229 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Mohammad Waseem Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Avnish Kumar Srivastava,Mohammad Anas Raza Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

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

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

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 cognizance order dated 19.08.2020 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Hasanpur, J.P. Nagar whereby the applicant was summoned to face trial of Case No.588 of 2020, arising out of Crime No.599 of 2019 (State Versus Mohammad Waseem) under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. & 3/4 Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, P.S. Hasanpur, District Amroha (J.P. Nagar).

¶7

It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the cognizance order has been passed on 19.08.2020 wherein no section has been mentioned. If the sections mentioned in the array of the order- sheet are seen these sections are 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act while as per charge-sheet appended at page 80 of the paper book filed against the applicant Mohammad Waseem are Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. & 3/4 Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 it shows that the learned Magistrate neither went through the documents nor applied his mind while passing the impugned order so the prayer is made to quash the summoning order, cognizance order as well as entire proceedings.

¶8

Learned A.G.A., however, could not oppose the arguments of the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶9

The arguments of the learned counsel for the applicant are found to be correct. The entire cognizance order is on printed proforma wherein neither the name of the accused person nor sections in which he is going to be summoned have been mentioned. Though, in the array of the order-sheet Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act have been mentioned but the charge-sheet on record shows that it has been filed only in Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. & 3/4 Muslim

¶10

Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 so the Sections 498A and 3/4 D.P. Act mentioned in the order sheet have been wrongly mentioned. The order is on printed proforma and the mentioning of wrong sections in the array of the order sheet and not mentioning the name of the accused and Sections in the cognizance order show that the learned Magistrate neither went through the documents nor applied his mind before passing the cognizance order.

¶11

The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. deserves to be allowed to the extent that the cognizance order dated 19.08.2020 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Hasanpur, J.P. Nagar is hereby quashed.

¶12

The trial court is directed to go through the file properly and pass an order applying his judicial mind.

¶13

Order Date :- 6.6.2022 Radhika

¶14

Digitally signed by RADHIKA VISHWAKARMA Date: 2022.06.07 18:01:53 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mohammad Waseem v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Waseem 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Seema Chauhan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jagdish Tiwari and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jamaluddun @ Jammal and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Mohammad Kamil Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ramesh Pandey Vs State of U.P and Another