Partly allowed

Kailash and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC23 Mar 2023A482/9711/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to set aside an order dated 12.02.2020 taking cognizance because it was passed on a printed proforma without application of mind, citing precedent deprecating such formats.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 12.02.2020 taken cognizance and summons has been set aside. Application allowed to that extent. Matter remanded to court below to pass fresh order within three weeks.

Kailash and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 71

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9711 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Kailash And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sabhajeet Nishad Ramjanki Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶5

List revised.

¶6

Heard Sri Sabhajeet,Nishad, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned State counsel and perused the record.

¶7

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants- Kailash, Bhodu @ Ramdas and Ramdev with the prayer to quash the entire proceeding as well as impugned charge-sheet dated 06.12.2019 & cognizance order dated 12.02.2020 in Criminal Case No. 87/Nau/2020 (State vs. Kailash and others) arising out of N.C.R. No. 34 of 2019, under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Jaspura, District Banda pending in the Court of III Civil Judge (Junior Division), Banda with a further prayer that proceedings of the aforesaid case be stayed against the applicants during the pendency of the present application.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants has drawn the attention of the Court to the summoning order, the copy of which is annexed at page no.45 to the paper book (Annexure No.13). It is argued that the same is on a printed proforma without application of mind. It is argued that from perusal of the order dated 12.02.2020, it is apparent that the same is on a printed proforma in which the Section, Police Station, Case No., name of the accused have been filed by ink along with next date for appearance of the accused whereas all the other contents of the order are previously printed. It is argued that the same clearly demonstrates that there has been total non application of mind by the concerned trial court and the order taking cognizance and summoning the accused is thus bad in the eyes of law.

¶9

Learned counsel for the State though opposed the prayer for quashing but could not dispute the fact that the order taking cognizance and summoning the accused dated 12.02.2020 is on a printed proforma with blank spaces of the relevant things which have been filled in ink.

¶10

Time and again, it has been held that orders of printed proforma cannot be passed and the said system of passing such orders have been deprecated.

¶11

In the case of Amit Jani vs. State of U.P. and others: (2020) 5 ADJ 1, a Division Bench of this Court has held as follows:-

¶12

"The passing of orders in printed proforma/cyclostyled formats have been deprecated by various High Courts including this court as they do not reflect application of mind. Reference is made to the following judgments:-

¶13

1. 2000 ILR (Kar) 4773, Vijaya Bank Vs. State.

¶14

2. 2010(9) ADJ 594, Abdul Rasheed Vs. State of U.P. & another.

¶15

3. 2009 (67) ACC 532, Ankit Vs. State of U.P. & another.

¶16

4. 2010 (3) ADJ 622, Saurabh Dewana Vs. State of U.P."

¶17

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and without going into the merits of the case as of now, the order dated 12.02.2020 is hereby set aside.

¶18

The application is allowed to this extent.

¶19

The matter is remanded back to the court below to pass fresh order in accordance with law within a period of three weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

¶20

Order Date :- 23.3.2023 AS Rathore

¶21

(Samit Gopal,J.)

¶22

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

Kailash and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kailash 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

Tej Prakash Mishra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shyam Mohan Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Farida Bano Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Navneet Tomar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mehilal and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Safalta Sharma and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another