Allowed

Harishankar Nishad and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC20 Jan 2023A482/38091/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed a cognizance order dated 01.03.2017 passed by the lower court as it was mechanically made by filling blanks on a printed proforma without applying judicial mind to the evidence on record.

What did the court decide?

The cognizance order dated 01.03.2017 is quashed. The lower Court is directed to pass a fresh order regarding cognizance as per law at the earliest.

Harishankar Nishad and 2 Others Vs State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 72

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 38091 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Harishankar Nishad And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Narayan Dutt Shukla,Rahul Kumar Singh,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Sharma,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This application has been filed by the learned counsel for the applicants for quashing the charge-sheet dated 27.07.2016 bearing No. 01, cognizance and summoning order dated 01.03.2017 ( contained in Annexure No. 2 & 3 respectively to this affidavit) as well as, further proceeding of Criminal Case No. 902 of 2017 (State Vs. Harishankar etc.) arising out of Case Crime No. 270 of 2016 under Sections 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Gauribazar, District- Deoria pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 17, Deoria.

¶7

At the outset, it is argued by the learned counsel for the applicants the the cognizance order dated 01.03.2017 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.

¶8

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 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 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

¶9

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.

¶10

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.

¶11

The result is that the order impugned dated 01.03.2017 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 01.03.2017 is liable to be quashed.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicants has filed supplementary affidavit which shall be indexed and kept in the file by the Office.

¶13

The cognizance order dated 01.03.2017 is hereby quashed. The lower Court is directed to pass a fresh order regarding cognizance as per law at the earliest.

¶14

The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of accordingly.

¶15

Learned counsel for the applicants also makes a request that since the criminal case relates to the year 2017, may be decided expeditiously. Registrar (Compliance) is directed to send a copy of this order immediately to the Court concerned who shall decide the case finally within one year from the date of production of copy of this order.

¶16

Order Date :- 20.1.2023 A. Sharma

¶17

Digitally signed by :- ANJALI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Harishankar Nishad and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harishankar Nishad and 2 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

Ram Karan Mishra and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sandeep Saroj and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Anil Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bhupendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Anothers

Prem Pal Singh and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jishan Vs State of U.P. and Another