Allowed an application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the cognizance and summoning order. The court held the order was passed on a printed proforma by staff without applying judicial mind, which is unsustainable in law.
Impugned cognizance and summoning order are quashed. Applicant is summoned afresh by applying judicial mind within two months.
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. - 69
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12944 of 2023
Applicant :- Neeraj Agrwal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ruchita Jain Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.
Heard Ms. Ruchita Jain, learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant for quashing of charge sheet No. 212 of 2020 dated 27.7.2020,cognizance/summoning order dated 28.8.2020 as well as entire proceeding in Criminal Case No. 7250 of 2020(State vs. Neeraj Agrawal) arising out of Case Crime No.417 of 2019 under Section 420, 386, 452, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Jhansi, District Jhansi pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that impugned cognizance/summoning order dated 28.8.2020 has been passed on a printed proforma by filling the blanks and it has been passed without application of judicial mind and as such, it is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Ankit Vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in 2009(9) ADJ page 778 .
On the basis of aforesaid judgment, it has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that summoning of accused in criminal case is a serious matter and the order impugned reflects that the Magistrate had not applied his judicial mind, as in the present case the impugned cognizance/summoning order has been passed on a printed proforma, which clearly indicates that the same has been passed without applying judicial mind and the learned Magistrate only put his signature at the bottom of order.
On the other hand, learned AGA has submitted that summoning order has been passed by the learned Magistrate after considering the material which are available on record, but he could not dispute the fact that the order taking cognizance has been passed on the printed proforma.
The present case is finally decided at the admission stage itself without issuing notice to the opposite party no.2.
From bare perusal of impugned cognizance/summoning order, it is apparent that it has been passed on a printed proforma by filling the blanks and it appears that the blanks were filled up by some staff of the Judicial Magistrate and the Judicial Magistrate has only put his initial at the bottom of summoning order.
The law on this point is well settled that prior to taking cognizance and issuing summons to the accused-persons, the Judicial Magistrate has to apply his judicial mind and that the cognizance/summoning order cannot be passed in a mechanical manner.
In view of above, since impugned cognizance/summoning order has been passed on a printed proforma by filling the blanks without application of judicial mind and as such, it is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
Accordingly the application under section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. The impugned cognizance/summoning order is hereby quashed.
Learned Judicial Magistrate is directed to pass a fresh order regarding cognizance as well as summoning of the applicant in the aforesaid case in accordance with law, after applying his judicial mind within a period of two months from the date of production of a copy of this order.
Order Date :- 21.4.2023 P.P.
Digitally signed by :- POONAM PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned cognizance/summoning order passed by filling a printed proforma without application of judicial mind is sustainable in law.
Whether the impugned order should be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for being passed in a mechanical manner.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ankit V. State of U.P.Referred¶7
Ankit Vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in 2009(9) ADJ page 778
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Neeraj Agrwal
State of U.P.
Another
Vipin Chandra Dixit
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
