Quashed

Sudama Prajapati and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC11 Jan 2023A482/39053/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court quashed the cognizance order dated 10.03.2021 passed by the trial court. It held that passing an order merely by filling blanks on a printed proforma without applying judicial mind renders the order illegal and improper under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

The cognizance order dated 10.03.2021 is quashed, and the trial court is directed to pass a fresh order.

Sudama Prajapati and 3 Others Vs State of U.P… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 71

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 39053 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Sudama Prajapati And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Md. Nuruddin Khan,Umakant Chaudhary Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants; learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the charge-sheet dated 27.01.2020, cognizance order dated 10.03.2021 as well as all consequential proceedings of Case No.15676 of 2021 (State Vs. Sudama Prajapati & Ors.) arising out of Case Crime No.379 of 2019, under Sections 323, 308 504 I.P.C., Police Station-Campierganj, District-Gorakhpur, pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate-III, Gorakhpur.

¶7

It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the cognizance has been taken on the printed proforma so it cannot be said that the lower court had applied its judicial mind in passing the cognizance order. Hence, prayer is made to quash the cognizance order as well as the chargesheet.

¶8

So far as the argument that the cognizance order passed on a printed proforma is concerned, although 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 of 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 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.

¶9

In the present case also the cognizance order has been passed by the Magistrate concerned on a printed proforma just by filling up the blanks in 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.

¶10

The result is that the order impugned dated 10.03.2021, 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 10.03.2021 is liable to be quashed.

¶11

Without going into the merits of the case cognizance order dated 10.03.2021 is hereby quashed. The trial court court is directed to pass a fresh order regarding cognizance as per law. Regarding prayer for quashing of the charge-sheet no argument is put before the Court.

¶12

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

¶13

Order Date :- 11.1.2023 Jyotsana

¶14

Digitally signed by :- JYOTSANA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sudama Prajapati and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudama Prajapati and 3 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

Israr Ahmad Khan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sandip and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sushma Giri and 28 Others Vs State of U.P and Another

Asha Devi and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Monu and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ramveer Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others