Allowed

Abhi Singh and 8 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC31 Jan 2023A482/42898/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the criminal proceedings, holding that the impugned cognizance order dated 15.09.2022 was illegal because it was merely filled on a printed proforma without the magistrate applying his judicial mind to the evidence.

What did the court decide?

The cognizance order dated 15.09.2022 is quashed. The lower court is directed to pass a fresh order regarding cognizance within one month.

Abhi Singh and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 72

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 42898 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Abhi Singh And 8 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dhiraj Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Sharma,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶6

This application has been filed by the applicant for quashing the entire proceedings of Criminal Case NO.6359 of 2022 (State Vs. Abhi Singh and others) arising out of Case Crime No.206 of 2022, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 DP Act, Police Station Gagalheri, District Saharanpur and the charge sheet dated 31.07.2022 as well as cognizance order dated 15.09.2022 passed by the Judicial Magistrate-III, Saharanpur.

¶7

At the outset, it is argued by the learned counsel for the applicants the the cognizance order dated 15.09.2022 has been passed on a printed 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 opposite 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.

¶9

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 Report 2009 (3) 427 has established that if the order on printed proforma is passed it establishes that the

¶10

Magistrate concerned has not applied his mind to the evidence on record in order to take cognizance of the offence concerned.

¶11

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.

¶12

The result is that the order impugned dated 15.09.2022 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 15.09.2022 is liable to be quashed.

¶13

The cognizance order dated 15.09.2022 is hereby quashed. The lower court is directed to pass a fresh order regarding cognizance within one month as per law.

¶14

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

¶15

Order Date :- 31.1.2023 Shahroz

¶16

Digitally signed by :- SHAHROJ ALAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Abhi Singh and 8 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhi Singh and 8 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

Dinesh and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ramsanehi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Subodh Yadav @ Samod Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohan Vs State of U.P and Another

Matloob Vs State of U.P.

Prakash Chandra and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another