This court quashed a cognizance order because it was passed mechanically on a printed proforma without the magistrate applying judicial mind to the evidence, violating established legal principles regarding criminal procedure.
The cognizance order dated 08.05.2018 is quashed; lower court directed to pass a fresh order.
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. - 72
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 23028 of 2022
Applicant :- Mahboob Alam @ Sajju Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rama Shanker Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Sharma, J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the opp. party nos. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.
This application has been filed by the applicant for quashing the entire proceeding of Case No. 1730 of 2018 (State Vs. Mahnboob Alam @ Sajju) arising out of Case Crime No. 147 of 2017 under Section 188 I.P.C and Section 125 of the representation of the People Act, Police Station - Kokhraj, District - Kaushambi, pending before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Kaushambi and charge-sheet dated 02.11.2017 as well as cognizance order dated 08.5.2018 in aforesaid case.
At the outset, it is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant the the cognizance order dated 08.05.2018 has been passed on a printing proforma which is against the provisions of law, hence the cognizance order is liable to set aside on this ground alone.
However, learned counsel for the opp. parties has argued that as the cognizance order has been passed on a printed proforma this alone cannot be a ground for setting aside the cognizance order.
Though it has been held by this Court in the case of Megh Nath Gupta & another Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2008 (62) ACC 826 that 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 its judicial mind and even the order of taking cognizance cannot be passed in mechanical manner. Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Harischandra Prasad Mani and others Vs. State of Jharkhand and another (2007) 15 Supreme Court Cases 494, Fakhruddin Ahmad Vs. State of Uttaranchal and another (2008) 17 Supreme Court Cases 157 and Ankit Vs. State of U.P. and others, U.P. Criminal Report 2009 (3) 427 has established that if the order on printed proforma is passed it establishes that the Magistrate concerned has not applied his mind to the evidence on record in order to take cognizance of the offence concerned.
In the present case also the cognizance order has been passed by the Magistrate concerned on a printed proforma just by putting his initial on the order which clearly shows that the Magistrate concerned has not applied his judicial mind and has not gone through the material collected by the Investigating Officer against the applicant in the case.
The result is that the order impugned dated 08.05.2018 which has been passed by filling the blanks on the printed proforma is illegal, incorrect
and improper, which cannot be sustained. Hence, the cognizance order dated 08.05.2018 is liable to be quashed.
The cognizance order dated 08.05.2018 is hereby quashed. The lower court is directed to pass a fresh order regarding cognizance as per law.
The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of accordingly.
Order Date :- 4.1.2023 Vinod.
Digitally signed by :- VINOD KUMAR JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a cognizance order passed by filling blanks on a printed proforma without judicial application of mind is sustainable under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Whether a mere signature or initial on a pre-printed form vitiates the legality of a trial stage order.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Megh Nath Gupta & another Vs. State of U.P. and anotherReferred¶9
Megh Nath Gupta & another Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2008 (62) ACC 826
Harischandra Prasad Mani and others Vs. State of Jharkhand and anotherReferred¶9
Harischandra Prasad Mani and others Vs. State of Jharkhand and another (2007) 15 Supreme Court Cases 494
Fakhruddin Ahmad Vs. State of Uttaranchal and anotherReferred¶9
Fakhruddin Ahmad Vs. State of Uttaranchal and another (2008) 17 Supreme Court Cases 157
Ankit Vs. State of U.P. and othersReferred¶9
Ankit Vs. State of U.P. and others, U.P. Criminal Report 2009 (3) 427
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Mahboob Alam @ Sajju
Umesh Chandra Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
