Pukhraj Rjpurohit and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2023)

Pukhraj Rjpurohit and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2023)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Cognizance/summoning order dated 19.7.2021 quashed; trial court directed to pass a fresh order regarding cognizance as per law; Section 482 Cr.P.C. application disposed of accordingly (charge-sheet dated 11.5.2021 and pending proceedings not themselves quashed).

Issue for consideration

Whether the cognizance/summoning order dated 19.07.2021, passed on a printed proforma by filling in the blanks, is sustainable in law and liable to be quashed.

Court's answer

At the time of passing any judicial order, including the order taking cognizance on a charge-sheet, the court is required to apply its judicial mind; a cognizance order cannot be passed in a mechanical manner.

Ratio / Principle

The impugned cognizance order dated 19.7.2021, passed by filling the blanks on a printed proforma with only the Magistrate's initial, shows non-application of judicial mind and is illegal, incorrect and improper, and cannot be sustained.

Key takeaways

The cognizance order dated 19.7.2021 is quashed and the lower court is directed to pass a fresh order regarding cognizance as per law.ratio¶¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Umesh Chandra Sharma, J.) — Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 24935 of 2022 seeking quashing of the charge-sheet dated 11.5.2021, the cognizance/summoning order dated 19.07.2021 and the entire proceedings of Case No. 7981 of 2021 (State Vs. Prahlad & Others) under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act: Held, even while taking cognizance on a charge-sheet the Magistrate must apply his judicial mind, and a cognizance order passed on a printed proforma by filling blanks and putting an initial shows non-application of mind and is illegal, incorrect and improper. The cognizance order dated 19.7.2021 was quashed and the trial court directed to pass a fresh cognizance order as per law. Relied on Harischandra Prasad Mani (2007) 15 Supreme Court Cases 494, Fakhruddin Ahmad (2008) 17 Supreme Court Cases 157 and Ankit (U.P. Criminal Report 2009 (3) 427); Megh Nath Gupta (2008 (62) ACC 826) distinguished — the absence of any requirement to pass a detailed reasoned order does not permit cognizance by proforma. Application disposed of accordingly.

Court No. - 72

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 24935 of 2022

Applicant :- Pukhraj Rjpurohit And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Akhilesh Singh,Yogendra Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ramji Singh Patel,Satish Chandra Jaiswal

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Sharma,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opp. party nos. 2 and 3 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

This application has been filed by the applicant for quashing the charge-sheet dated 11.5.2021 as well as cognizance/summonig order dated 19.07.2021 and the entire proceeding of Case No. 7981 of 2021 (State Vs. Prahlad & Others) under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowrty Prohibition Act, pending in the Cour of Civil Judge (Junior Division)/F.T.C./ Court No.2, Deoria.

At the outset, it is argued by the learned counsel for the applicants the the cognizance order dated 19.07.2021 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 chargesheet, 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 19.7.2021 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 19.7.2021 is liable to be quashed.

The cognizance order dated 19.7.2021 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 :- 5.1.2023 S.Verma

Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad