Partly allowed

Raj Kapoor Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC24 Apr 2023A482/14338/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of an application under Section 482 CrPC challenging a cognizance order. Finding that the impugned order was passed on a printed proforma filled in ink without specific mention of facts, the court held such orders reflect non-application of mind. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded to the lower court.

What did the court decide?

The impugned cognizance and summoning order dated 23.10.2020 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the lower court to pass a fresh order within three weeks.

Raj Kapoor Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 71

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 14338 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Raj Kapoor Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shubham Srivastava,Sunil Kumar Srivastava

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶6

List revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri B.B. Upadhyay, learned State counsel and perused the record.

¶8

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant- Raj Kapoor Yadav, with the prayer to allow this application and quash the proceeding as well as impugned charge-sheet dated 05.07.2020 & cognizance order dated 23.10.2020 in Case No. 912 of 2020 (New No.543 of 2021) arising out of Case Crime No. 75 of 2020 (State Vs. Raj Kapoor Yadav) , under Section 379 I.P.C. & Section 3/4 Mines and Mineral Act, Police Station Biharigarh, District Saharanpur pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate-III, Saharanpur with a further prayer that proceedings of the aforesaid case be stayed against the applicants during the pendency of the present application.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of the Court to the summoning order, the copy of which is annexed at page no. 68 to the paper book (Annexure No.12). It is argued that the same is on a printed proforma without application of mind. It is argued that from perusal of the order dated 23.10.2020, it is apparent that the same is on a printed proforma in which the Section, Police Station, Case No., name of the accused have been filed by ink along with next date for appearance of the accused whereas all the other contents of the order are previously printed. It is argued that the same clearly demonstrates that there has been total non application of mind by the concerned trial court and the order taking cognizance and summoning the accused is thus bad in the eyes of law.

¶10

Learned counsel for the State though opposed the prayer for quashing but could not dispute the fact that the order taking cognizance and summoning the accused dated 23.10.2020 is on a printed proforma which have been filled in ink.

¶11

Time and again, it has been held that orders of printed proforma cannot be passed and the said system of passing such orders have been deprecated.

¶12

In the case of Amit Jani vs. State of U.P. and others: (2020) 5 ADJ 1, a Division Bench of this Court has held as follows:-

¶13

"The passing of orders in printed proforma/cyclostyled formats have been deprecated by various High Courts including this court as they do not reflect application of mind. Reference is made to the following judgments:-

¶14

1. 2000 ILR (Kar) 4773, Vijaya Bank Vs. State.

¶15

2. 2010(9) ADJ 594, Abdul Rasheed Vs. State of U.P. & another.

¶16

3. 2009 (67) ACC 532, Ankit Vs. State of U.P. & another.

¶17

4. 2010 (3) ADJ 622, Saurabh Dewana Vs. State of U.P."

¶18

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and without going into the merits of the case as of now, the order dated 23.10.2020 is hereby set aside.

¶19

The present application is allowed to this extent.

¶20

The matter is remanded back to the court below to pass fresh order in accordance with law within a period of three weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

¶21

Order Date :- 24.4.2023 AS Rathore

¶22

(Samit Gopal,J.)

¶23

Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Raj Kapoor Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kapoor Yadav 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

Yasir Ali and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vikas and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Harshankar and 10 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jalim Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Iqpal and 13 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Hari Pratap and 3 Others Vs State of U.P.and Another