Partly allowed

Santosh Kumar Yadav and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC2 Aug 2023A482/27857/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the impugned cognizance and summoning order passed by the Magistrate because it was mechanical and filled on a printed proforma without application of judicial mind, directing a fresh reasoned order.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the impugned cognizance and summoning order dated 01.03.2023 and directed the Magistrate to pass a fresh cognizance order after applying the judicial mind.

Santosh Kumar Yadav and 4 Others Vs State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:154630

¶2

Court No. - 4

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 27857 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Yadav And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Akshay Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with prayer to quash the impugned charge sheet dated 10.07.2022 as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 01.03.2023 passed by Additional Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Mohammadabad, Ghazipur in Case No. 1279 of 2023, arising out of Case Crime No. 050 of 2022 under Section 147, 148, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Bareser, District - Ghazipur. With an alternative prayer to stay the aforesaid case.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants contended that applicants have been falsely implicated in this case. No offence is made out against them. Present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purpose of harassment. It is also submitted that cognizance of the offence has been taken on printed proforma without applying judicial mind.

¶9

It has also been submitted that cognizance of the offence has been taken on printed proforma without applying judicial mind. Relying upon the decision of this Court in Ankit Vs. State of U.P. and another J.I.C. 2010 (1) 432 , submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that the order of cognizance being on a printed proforma is clearly without application of judicial mind and hence is liable to be quashed on this ground alone.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer and submitted that at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants and charge sheet has not been submitted on the basis of credible evidence. He further submitted that the cognizance order has been based on printed proforma and, therefore, keeping in view the decision in the case of Ankit (supra) the Magistrate

¶11

concerned may be directed to pass a fresh order.

¶12

As regards the order of cognizance dated 01.03.2023 a certified copy of that order is annexed as Annexure No.5 to the affidavit. From perusal of the above order, it is evident that it is in a typed proforma where "crime number, section of the offence, name of the accused and next date fixed" are filled in printed proforma which leads to the conclusion that the Magistrate had passed the order in mechanical manner without application of judicial mind. In series of decision of the Apex Court, and of this Court it has been disapproved to pass the cognizance order in printed proforma.

¶13

This type of order has already been held unsustainable by this Court in the case of Ankit (supra) relying on in a number of decisions of the Apex Court. The relevant portion of the said judgement, is extracted below:

¶14

"Although as held by this Court in the case of Megh Nath Guptas & Anr V State of U.P. And Anr, 2008 (62) ACC 826, in which reference has been made to the cases of Deputy Chief Controller Import and Export Vs Roshan Lal Agarwal, 2003 (4^) ACC 686 (SC), UP Pollution Control Board Vs Mohan Meakins, 2000 (2) JIC 159 (SC): AIR 2000 SC 1456 and Kanti Bhadra Vs State of West Bengal, 2000 (1) JIC 751 (SC): 2000 (40) ACC 441 (SC), 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 judicial mind and even the order of taking cognizance cannot be passed in mechanical manner. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and the matter has to be sent back to the Court below for passing fresh order on the charge sheet after applying judicial mind."

¶15

In view of the above, the order of cognizance i.e. summoning order dated 01.03.2023 passed by Magistrate is hereby quashed and application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is accordingly partly allowed.

¶16

The concerned Magistrate is directed to pass fresh cognizance order after applying the judicial mind.

¶17

With the above observations, the application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is finally disposed of.

¶18

Order Date :- 2.8.2023 Swati

¶19

Digitally signed by :- SWATI PATHAK High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Santosh Kumar Yadav and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Kumar Yadav and 4 Others 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

Mohd Riyaz Warasi Vs Smt Shagufta and 4 Others

Mushtaq Ahamed Vs Mohd. Imran

Mushtaq Ahamed Vs Fakeer Mohammad (Since Deceased) and 2 Others

Abdul Shahid Alias Ajju Vs Mohammad Ehtesham and 2 Others

Shivbachan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Lavkush Yadav and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another