Allowed

Shailendra Agrawal and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC13 Jul 2023A482/23206/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. setting aside a cognizance order passed on a printed proforma with blank fields filled by ink, finding it lacked application of mind. The matter was remanded to the trial court to pass a fresh legal order within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 22.04.2017 is set aside. The application is allowed and matter remanded to trial court to pass a fresh order within three weeks.

Shailendra Agrawal and Another Vs State of U.P… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:138976

¶2

Court No. - 91

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 23206 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Shailendra Agrawal And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Bharat Bhushan Paul,Saurabh Paul Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Gajendra Kumar,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned State counsel and perused the record.

¶7

This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash the impugned charge sheet dated 24.03.2017 as well as cognizance/ summoning order dated 22.04.2017 and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 14365 of 2017, arising out of Case Crime No.949 of 2016, under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C., P.S.- Hariparvat, District Agra and with the further prayer to stay the entire proceedings of the said case.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants has drawn the attention of the Court to the cognizance/ summoning order, the copy of which is annexed at page no.45 to the paper book. 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 22.04.2017, it is apparent that the same is on a printed proforma in which the Section, Police Station, Case No., name of the accused are kept blank and 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.

¶9

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 22.04.2017 is on a printed proforma with blank spaces of the relevant things which have been filled in ink.

¶10

Time and again, it has been held that orders of printed proforma

¶11

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 22.04.2017 is hereby set-aside.

¶19

The present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed to this extent.

¶20

The matter is remanded back to the trial court concerned 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 :- 13.7.2023 Sanjeet

¶22

Digitally signed by :- SANJEET KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shailendra Agrawal and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shailendra Agrawal and Another 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

Neha Chauhan Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Balendra Singh Vs State of U.P.and Another

Pramod Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Adarsh Kumar Tripathi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Renu Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Shanti Devi Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others