Applicant sought quashing of a cognizance order passed mechanically on a printed proforma by a Magistrate. The High Court held the order unsustainable for lack of judicial mind and quashed it.
The impugned cognizance/summoning order is quashed; the Judicial Magistrate is directed to pass a fresh order applying judicial mind within two months.
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.
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:114026
Court No. - 69
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2809 of 2022
Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Suneel Kumar Mishra,Shiv Babu Verma
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant for quashing of entire proceeding as well as charge sheet dated 01.03.2020 and Cognizance Order dated 29.10.2020 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar in Case No.6388 of 2020 (State Vs. Pradeep Kumar) arising out of Case Crime No.207 of 2019, under Sections 354, 323, 504, 506, 501 I.P.C., Police Station Dumariyaganj, District Siddharth Nagar.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that impugned cognizance/summoning order dated 29.10.2020 has been passed on a printed proforma by filling the blanks and it has been passed without application of judicial mind and as such, it is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Ankit Vs. State of U.P. and another , reported in 2009 (9) ADJ page 778 .
On the basis of aforesaid judgment, it has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that summoning of accused in criminal case is a serious matter and the order impugned reflects that the Magistrate had not applied his judicial mind, as in the present case the impugned cognizance/summoning order has been passed on a printed proforma, which clearly indicates that the same has been passed without applying judicial mind and the learned Magistrate only put his signature at the bottom of order.
On the other hand, learned AGA has submitted that summoning order has been passed by the learned Magistrate after considering the material which are available on record, but he could not dispute the fact that the order taking cognizance has been passed on the printed proforma.
The present case is finally decided at the admission stage itself without issuing notice to the opposite party no.2.
From bare perusal of impugned cognizance/summoning order, it is apparent that it has been passed on a printed proforma by filling the blanks and it appears that the blanks were filled up by some staff of the Judicial Magistrate and the Judicial Magistrate has only put his initial at the bottom of summoning order.
The law on this point is well settled that prior to taking cognizance and issuing summons to the accused-persons, the Judicial Magistrate has to apply his judicial mind and that the cognizance/summoning order cannot be passed in a mechanical manner.
In view of above, since impugned cognizance/summoning order has been passed on a printed proforma by filling the blanks without application of judicial mind and as such, it is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
Accordingly the Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed .
The impugned cognizance/summoning order is hereby quashed.
Learned Judicial Magistrate is directed to pass a fresh order regarding cognizance as well as summoning of the applicant in the aforesaid case in accordance with law, after applying his judicial mind within a period of two months from the date of production of a copy of this order.
Order Date :- 23.5.2023 Atul
Digitally signed by :- ATUL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a cognizance/summoning order passed on a printed proforma without judicial application of mind is sustainable under law.
Whether the High Court can quash an order passed mechanically by filling blanks rather than applying judicial mind.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ankit Vs. State of U.P. and anotherRelied on¶9
Ankit Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2009 (9) ADJ page 778
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Pradeep Kumar
State of U.P.
Vipin Chandra Dixit
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
