Allowed

Jagdish v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC3 Nov 2023A482/33946/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Allahabad High Court quashed a cognizance order passed on a printed proforma without application of judicial mind. The Court directed the Magistrate to pass a fresh order applying its mind within one month.

What did the court decide?

Impugned cognizance order dated 22.11.2022 quashed; Magistrate directed to pass fresh order within one month.

Jagdish Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:211340

¶2

Court No. - 89

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 33946 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Jagdish Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Vipin Chandra Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Narendra Kumar Tiwari

¶5

Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant to quash the impugned charge sheet No.01 dated 16.03.2022 and cognizance order dated 22.11.2022 in Special Session Trial No.1218 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime No.371 of 2020 (State vs. Jagdish), under Section 135 Electricity Act, Police Station- Kotwali, District- Fatehpur, pending in the court of Special Judge E.C. Act, Fatehpur.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that impugned cognizance order 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 applicants 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 .

¶9

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 its judicial mind, as in the present case the impugned cognizance/summoning order has been passed on printed proforma, which clearly indicates that the same has been passed without applying judicial mind and the learned Magistrate only put its signature at the bottom of order.

¶10

On the other hand, learned AGA has submitted that cognizance 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.

¶11

The present case is finally decided at the admission stage itself without issuing notice to the opposite party no.2.

¶12

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

¶13

blanks were filled up by some staff of the concerned Magistrate and the concerned Magistrate has only put its initial at the bottom of summoning order.

¶14

The law on this point is well settled that prior to taking cognizance and issuing summons to the accused-persons, the concerned Magistrate has to apply its judicial mind and that the cognizance/summoning order cannot be passed in a mechanical manner.

¶15

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.

¶16

Accordingly the application under section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed . The impugned cognizance order dated 22.11.2022 is hereby quashed.

¶17

The concerned 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 its judicial mind within a period of one month from the date of production of a copy of this order.

¶18

Order Date :- 3.11.2023 SKD

¶19

Digitally signed by :- SURJIT KUMAR DEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Jagdish v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagdish v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

Narandra Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mahedra Pal Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Amit Kumar Sanghai Vs State of U.P.and Another

Sumita Negi and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Manish Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohan Lal Sharma and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another