Allowed

Papiya @ Arvind @ Pratap Singh and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC15 Jul 2022A482/9170/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application under Section 482 CrPC quashing an order of taking cognizance. The court held that the order was merely a mechanical filling of blanks without applying judicial mind, rendering it unsustainable and contrary to statutory requirements.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the order of taking cognizance dated 8.10.2021 and remanded the matter to the lower court to pass a fresh reasoned order.

Papiya @ Arvind @ Pratap Singh and 3 Others Vs… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 83

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9170 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Papiya @ Arvind @ Pratap Singh And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Diwanshu Tiwari,Mithilesh Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vinod Kumar Yadav

¶4

Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶5

vkosndx.k dh vksj ls /kkjk 482 na0iz0la0 ds vUrxZr ;g vkosnu i=] eq0v0la0&0032 lu~ 2021] vUrxZr /kkjk 147] 148] 452] 308] 504 Hkk0na0fo0] Fkkuk dksrokyh xqjlgk;xat] ftyk dUukSt esa izsf"kr vkjksi i= fn0 8&6&2021 ls mn~Hkwr okn la0 1977 lu 2021 esa U;kf;d eftLVzsV] dUukSt }kjk ikfjr izlaKku vkns’k fn0 8&10&2021 dh laiw.kZ dk;Zokgh dks vikLr djus gsrq nk;j fd;k x;k gSA

¶6

vkosndx.k ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dk dFku gS fd vkosndx.k ds fo:) mijksDr /kkjkvksa dk dksbZ vijk/k ugha curk gS] voj U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr rych vkns’k fn0 8&10&2021 ,d izksQkekZ vkMZj gS] ftlesa fd ,d Nis&Nik, izksQkekZ ij dsoy frfFk Hkjds rych vkns’k ikfjr dj fn;k x;k gS] bl izdkj rych vkns’k ikfjr djus esa fo}ku voj U;k;ky; }kjk vius LoLFk efLr"d dk mi;ksx ugha fd;k x;k gS] blfy, mijksDr okn dh dk;Zokgh dks vikLr dj fn;k tk;A vius rdZ ds leFkZu esa mUgksaus mPp U;k;ky;] bykgkckn }kjk Vishnu Kumar Gupta and another Vs. State of U.P. and another 2020 (11) ADJ 615 esa ikfjr fof/k O;oLFkk dh vksj U;k;ky; dk /;ku vkd"V fd;k] ftlds izLrj 18 esa fuEufyf[kr rF; mn~/kr fd, x, gSa %&

¶7

This type of order has already been held unsustainable by this Court in the case of Ankit (supra) relying on in a number of decisions of the Apex Court. The relevant portion of the said decision, is extracted below:

¶8

"Although as held by this Court in the case of Megh Nath Guptas & Anr V State of U.P. And Anr, 2008 (62) ACC 826, in which reference has been made to the cases of Deputy Chief Controller Import and Export Vs Roshan Lal Agarwal, 2003 (4^) ACC 686 (SC), UP Pollution Control Board Vs Mohan Meakins, 2000 (2) JIC 159 (SC): AIR 2000 SC 1456 and Kanti Bhadra Vs State of West Bengal, 2000 (1) JIC 751 (SC): 2000 (40) ACC 441 (SC), 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 judicial mind and even the order of taking cognizance cannot be passed in mechanical manner. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and the matter has to be sent back to the Court below for passing fresh order on the charge sheet after applying judicial mind."(Emphasis supplied)

¶9

eSaus vkosndx.k ds fo}ku vf/koDrk ds rdksZ ds ifjizs{; esa i=koyh ,oa iz’uxr vkns’k dk ifj’khyu fd;kA

¶10

i=koyh ds ifj’khyu ls ,slk ik;k x;k fd lacaf/kr voj U;k;ky; }kjk iz’uxr vkns’k fizUVsM izksQkekZ ij ikfjr fd;k x;k gS] ftlesa dsoy frfFk Hkj nh x;h gS ,oa vkns’k ikfjr djus esa lacaf/kr eftLVzsV }kjk U;kf;d efLr"d dk iz;ksx ugha fd;k x;k gS] tks fd vkifRrtud gSA fdlh nkf.Md okn esa rych vkns’k fd;k tkuk ,d xaHkhj ekeyk gS] ftls fo}ku eftLVzsV }kjk cgqr gh lksp le>dj ml ij vius U;kf;d efLr"d ls vkns’k ikfjr djuk pkfg,A

¶11

rn~uqlkj ;g /kkjk 482 na0iz0la0 ds vUrxZr nk;j ;g vkosnu i= vaxhdj.k ds Lrj ij gh] fcuk foi{kh la0 2 dks uksfVl tkjh fd, gq,] Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gS rFkk okn la0 1977 lu 2021 esa U;kf;d eftLVzsV] dUukSt }kjk ikfjr izlaKku vkns’k fn0 8&10&2021 vikLr fd;k tkrk gS] ,oa izdj.k dks muds le{k bl funsZ’k ds lkFk izfrizsf"kr fd;k tkrk gS fd bl vkns’k esa mfYyf[kr fdlh Hkh fVIi.kh ds xq.k&nks"k ls izHkkfor gq, fcuk] i{kdkjksa dks lquokbZ dk leqfpr volj nsrs gq, ,oa i=koyh dk lE;d :is.k voyksdu djus ds mijkUr] izdj.k ij mfpr vkns’k ikfjr fd;k tk;A

¶12

dk;kZy; dks funsZ'k fn;k tkrk gS fd bl vkns'k dh ,d izfrfyfi lacaf/kr fopkj.k U;k;ky; dks vfoyEc Hkstuk lqfuf'pr djsA

¶13

fn0 % 15&7&2022 ds0lh0flag

¶14

2 of 2

¶15

Digitally signed by KAILASH CHANDRA SINGH Date: 2022.07.15 16:45:25 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Papiya @ Arvind @ Pratap Singh and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Papiya @ Arvind @ Pratap Singh and 3 Others 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shivam Yadav and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Girand Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anuj Kumar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Prosenjit Roy Vs State of U.P and Another

Subes Kumar Shahi @ Sunni and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashish Mishra Vs State of U.P. and Another