Allowed

Adarsh Devi Prasad Agnihotri v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC3 May 2023A482/5382/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge granted an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash a summons order passed by the Judicial Magistrate on a printed proforma without applying judicial mind. The order also directed the Magistrate to pass a fresh order within two months.

What did the court decide?

The impugned cognizance/summoning order is quashed and the Judicial Magistrate is directed to pass a fresh order within two months.

Adarsh Devi Prasad Agnihotri Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5382 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Adarsh Devi Prasad Agnihotri Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Shiromani Shukla,Anubhav Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the applicant, is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant for quashing of cognizance/summoning order dated 31.07.2020 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasya, Kushinagar as well as entire proceedings of Case No. 2712 of 2020(State vs. Adarsh Devi Prasad Agnihotri) pursuant to charge sheet dated 28.2.2020 arising out of Case Crime No.433 of 2018 under Section 406, 420 IPC, Police Station Hata, District Kushi Nagar.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that impugned cognizance/summoning order dated 31.7.2020 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.

¶9

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 his judicial mind, as in the present case the impugned cognizance/summoning order has been passed on a printed proforma, which clearly indicates that the same has been passed without applying judicial mind and the learned Magistrate only put his signature at the bottom of order.

¶10

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

¶11

on the printed proforma.

¶12

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

¶13

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 Judicial Magistrate and the Judicial Magistrate has only put his initial at the bottom of summoning order.

¶14

The law on this point is well settled that prior to taking cognizance and issuing summons to the accused-persons, the Judicial Magistrate has to apply his judicial mind and that the cognizance/summoning order cannot be passed in a mechanical manner.

¶15

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.

¶16

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

¶17

Learned Judicial 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 his judicial mind within a period of two months from the date of production of a copy of this order.

¶18

Order Date :- 3.5.2023 P.P.

¶19

Digitally signed by :- POONAM PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Adarsh Devi Prasad Agnihotri v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Adarsh Devi Prasad Agnihotri 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

Anil Mittal Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Manoj Kumar Chaudhary Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanjeev Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mustkeem and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Prempal Vs State of U.P. and Another