The High Court quashed a mechanical cognizance and summoning order passed by a Judicial Magistrate merely by filling a printed proforma without applying judicial mind or recording reasons, directing a fresh order.
Impugned cognizance and summoning order quashed; Magistrate directed to pass a fresh order on cognizance within one month.
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:213569
Court No. - 93
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 36854 of 2023 Applicant :- Prashant Bhatt Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Kumar Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.
"9. In view of above legal position, this Court is of the view that merely signing and filling up the date and case crime number in printed proforma is absolutely non-application of mind because the cognizance order must reflect the prima facie opinion of the learned Magistrate on the material collected during investigation. Order of issuance of process is not an empty formality, it may affect the personal liberty of a person. Article 21 of Constitution of India guarantees personal liberty of a person and same cannot be deprived of, without due procedure of law. Apart from this, summoning of accused to appear before criminal court after taking cognizance is a serious matter, affecting the dignity, self-respect and image in society. Therefore, proper process by the criminal court must be followed at the time of taking cognizance and summoning the accused."
empty formality. The Magistrate is required to apply his mind as to whether sufficient ground for proceeding exists in the case or not. The formation of such an opinion is required to be stated in the order itself. The order is liable to be set aside if no reasons are given therein while coming to the conclusion that there is a prima facie case against the accused".
"53. However, the words "sufficient ground for proceeding" appearing in Section 204 are of immene importance. It is these words which amply suggest that an opinion is to be formed only after due application of mind that there is sufficient basis for proceeding against the said accused and formation of such an opinion is to be stated in the order itself. The order is liable to be set aside if no reason is given therein while coming to the conclusion that there is prima facie case against the accused, though the order need not contain detailed reasons. A fortiori, the order would be bad in law if the reason given turns out to be ex facie incorrect."
"21. In view of the above, the conduct of the judicial officers concerned in passing orders on printed proforma by filling up the blanks without application of judicial mind is objectionable and deserves to be deprecated. The summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter and the order must reflect that Magistrate had applied his mind to the facts as well as law applicable thereto, whereas the impugned summoning order was passed in mechanical manner without application of judicial mind."
Order Date :- 7.11.2023/Atul
Digitally signed by :- ATUL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a cognizance and summoning order passed by filling up a printed proforma without recording reasons amounts to non-application of mind under Section 204 Cr.P.C.
Whether such mechanical orders without application of mind are liable to be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Amit Kumar Dwivedi and another vs. State of U.P.Followed¶7
Application u/s 482 No. 35443 of 2023; Amit Kumar Dwivedi and another vs. State of U.P. and another
Lalankumar Singh vs State of MaharashtraFollowed¶7
Lalankumar Singh vs State of Maharashtra; 2022 SCC Online SC 1383 · Who else cites this
Sunil Bharti Mittal vs Central Bureau of InvestigationFollowed¶7
Sunil Bharti Mittal vs Central Bureau of Investigation; 2010(11) SCC 125 · Who else cites this
Satya Pal vs State of U.P.Followed¶7
Satya Pal vs State of U.P. and another; 2023 (4) ADJ 345 (LB)
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Prashant Bhatt
State of U.P.
Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
