Allowed¶14

Ram Vilas Sharma and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC18 Sept 2023CRLA/3773/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Printed proforma cognizance order; filling blanks; mechanical order; application of judicial mind; quashing of cognizance/summoning order; fresh cognizance order within one month; Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC; Section 3(1) SC/ST Act; Sessions Trial No. 802 of 2022; Case Crime No. 217 of 2022; Police Station Kotwali Kannauj; Special Judge SC/ST Act Kannauj; Megh Nath Gupta 2008 (62) ACC 826; Harischandra Prasad Mani (2007) 15 SCC 494; Fakhruddin Ahmad (2008) 17 SCC 157; Ankit U.P. Criminal Report 2009 (3) 427; Allahabad High Court; Criminal Appeal No. 3773 of 2023; decided 18.9.2023.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; cognizance/summoning order dated 06.09.2022 quashed without going into merits; trial court directed to pass a fresh cognizance order within one month as per law. ¶14

Ram Vilas Sharma and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal allowed; cognizance/summoning order dated 06.09.2022 quashed without going into merits; trial court directed to pass a fresh cognizance order within one month as per law.

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether the cognizance/summoning order dated 06.09.2022, passed on a printed proforma by merely filling blanks, shows that the trial court did not apply its judicial mind and is liable to be quashed.

¶8

Court's answer

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; even an order of taking cognizance cannot be passed in a mechanical manner.

¶9

Ratio / Principle

Although the Magistrate is not required to pass a detailed reasoned order at the time of taking cognizance on the charge-sheet, it does not mean that the order of taking cognizance can be passed by filling up blanks on a printed proforma.

¶9

Key takeaways

In the present case the cognizance order was passed on a printed proforma just by filling up the blanks, which clearly shows that the court concerned did not apply its judicial mind and did not go through the material collected by the Investigating Officer against the appellants.ratio¶11
The impugned order dated 06.09.2022, passed by filling the blanks on the printed proforma, is illegal, incorrect and improper, cannot be sustained, and is liable to be quashed.ratio¶12
Without going into the merits of the case, the cognizance/summoning order dated 06.09.2022 is hereby quashed, and the trial court is directed to pass a fresh order regarding cognizance within one month as per law.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Sadhna Rani (Thakur), J.), Criminal Appeal No. 3773 of 2023 (Ram Vilas Sharma and 2 others v. State of U.P. and another), decided 18.9.2023: Appeal against the cognizance/summoning order dated 06.09.2022 of the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Kannauj in Sessions Trial No. 802 of 2022 (arising out of Case Crime No. 217 of 2022, Police Station Kotwali Kannauj, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1) द SC/ST Act) allowed. Held: while a Magistrate is not required to pass a detailed reasoned order while taking cognizance on a charge-sheet (this Court in Megh Nath Gupta, 2008 (62) ACC 826), a cognizance order cannot be passed mechanically by filling blanks on a printed proforma; any judicial order requires application of judicial mind, and a proforma order establishes that the Magistrate has not applied his mind to the evidence on record (relying on Harischandra Prasad Mani, (2007) 15 SCC 494; Fakhruddin Ahmad, (2008) 17 SCC 157; Ankit, U.P. Criminal Report 2009 (3) 427). The impugned order was quashed without going into the merits, and the trial court was directed to pass a fresh cognizance order within one month as per law.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:179071

¶2

Court No. - 84

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3773 of 2023

¶4

Appellant :- Ram Vilas Sharma And 2 Others Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Jadu Nandan Yadav,Arimardan Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

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

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record.

¶7

This appeal has been filed to set aside the cognizance/summoning order dated 06.09.2022 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Kannauj in Sessions Trial No. 802 of 2022 (State Vs. Ram Vilas Sharma and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 217 of 2022 under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1) द SC/ST Act, Police Station Kotwali Kannauj, District Kannauj.

¶8

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

¶9

So far as the argument that the cognizance order has been 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 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

¶10

record in order to take cognizance of the offence concerned.

¶11

In the present case also the cognizance order has been passed by the court concerned on a printed proforma just by filling up the blanks in the order, which clearly shows that the court concerned did not apply his judicial mind and did not go through the material collected by the Investigating Officer against the appellants in the case.

¶12

The result is that the order impugned dated 06.09.2022, which has been passed by filling the blanks on the printed proforma is illegal, incorrect and improper, which cannot be sustained. Hence, the order dated 06.09.2022 is liable to be quashed.

¶13

Without going into the merits of the case cognizance/summoning order dated 06.09.2022 is hereby quashed. The trial court is directed to pass a fresh order regarding cognizance within one month as per law.

¶14

The appeal is allowed.

¶15

Order Date :- 18.9.2023

¶16

¶17

Digitally signed by :- GANESH PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ram Vilas Sharma and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Vilas Sharma and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of U.P. Vs Pappu and 3 Others

Geeta Devi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ramsewak Singh Yadav and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajesh Goshwami and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rakesh Pandey Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bindar Saini and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another