Allowed

Gulfam @ Gulfan v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC9 Aug 2023CRLA/4383/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal under the SC/ST Act, the Allahabad High Court held that a cognizance order passed by mechanically filling blanks in a printed proforma violates the requirement to apply judicial mind. The court quashed the order and directed a fresh jurisdictional order.

What did the court decide?

Cognizance order dated 26.07.2018 quashed; trial court directed to pass a fresh order within one month.

Gulfam @ Gulfan Vs State of U.P. and Another — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:160590

¶2

Court No. - 84

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4383 of 2023

¶4

Appellant :- Gulfam @ Gulfan Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Shashank Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

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

¶6

Learned counsel for the appellant is present.

¶7

Report regarding service of notice on respondent no.2 is still awaited.

¶8

This appeal under Section 14-A (1) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been filed with a prayer to set aside the cognizance/ summoning order dated 26.07.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Kanpur Nagar in Session Trial No.260 of 2018 (State Vs. Sonu Verma @ Arvind Singh and others) arising out of Case Crime No.102 of 2018, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 509 I.P.C. and Section 3(1) (S) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Kotwali, District Kanpur Nagar.

¶9

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that even in the absence of the respondent no.2 the matter can be heard as the impugned order dated 26.07.2018, which is a summoning order has been passed by the trial court on the printed proforma just filling up the gaps, which clearly shows that the trial court did not apply its judicial mind while passing the cognizance order, hence, the prayer is made accordingly.

¶10

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

¶11

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 record in order to take cognizance of the offence concerned.

¶12

In the present case also, the cognizance order has been passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Kanpur Nagar on a printed proforma just by filling up the blanks in the order, which clearly shows that the court concerned has not applied its judicial mind and has not gone through the material collected by the Investigating Officer against the appellant in the case.

¶13

The result is that the impugned cognizance order dated 26.07.2018, 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 26.07.2018 is liable to be quashed.

¶14

Without going into the merits of the case, cognizance order dated 26.07.2018 is hereby quashed. The trial court is directed to pass a fresh order regarding cognizance as per law, within one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

¶15

The appeal is allowed, accordingly.

¶16

Order Date :- 9.8.2023 Radhika

¶17

Digitally signed by :- RADHIKA VISHWAKARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Gulfam @ Gulfan v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gulfam @ Gulfan 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

Dilip Kumar Yadav and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Dr. Harendra Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vindhyansini Mishra and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

State of Up Vs Dev Prakash and 2 Others

Neeraj Alias Dhannjay Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another