Allowed

Prakash Chauhan v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC26 Apr 2023A482/5310/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the impugned cognizance and summoning order dated 16.3.2020 as it was mechanically passed on a printed proforma without the application of judicial mind. The court directed the Magistrate to pass a fresh order within two months.

What did the court decide?

The impugned cognizance/summoning order dated 16.3.2020 is quashed. The concerned Magistrate is directed to pass a fresh order within two months after applying judicial mind.

Prakash Chauhan Vs State of U.P. and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5310 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Prakash Chauhan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ajeet Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Ajeet Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant for quashing the charge-sheet dated 31.10.2019, cognizance order dated 16.3.2020, non-bailable warrant dated 12.12.2022 as well as the entire proceedings of Case No.963 of 2020 (State Vs. Prakash Chauhan), arising out of Case Crime No.529 of 2019, under Sections 504, 406 I.P.C., P.S. Line Bazar, District Jaunpur pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur.

¶7

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that impugned cognizance/summoning 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 applicant 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.

¶8

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.

¶9

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

¶10

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

¶11

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 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.

¶12

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.

¶13

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.

¶14

Accordingly the application under section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. The impugned cognizance/summoning order dated 16.3.2020 is hereby quashed.

¶15

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 two months from the date of production of a copy of this order.

¶16

Order Date :- 26.4.2023 Kpy

¶17

Digitally signed by :- KAVLESHWAR PRASAD YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Prakash Chauhan v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash Chauhan 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

Lalta Prasad and 9 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dr. Vijay Pati Dwivedi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Aazam Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashu Mansuri @ Guljar Mansuri and 2 Others Vs State of U.P and Another

Dinesh Kumar Koli Vs State of U.P.and Another

Smt. Seema and 2 Oters Vs State of U.P. and Another