Allowed

Vikram Singh Meena v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC16 Jul 2024A482/13385/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court set aside a summoning order and charge-sheet issued on a printed proforma, noting lack of judicial application of mind. The matter was remanded to the trial court to pass a fresh order in accordance with law within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

Impugned summoning order and charge-sheet set aside; matter remanded to trial court to pass fresh order within three weeks.

Vikram Singh Meena vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:113466

¶2

Court No. - 77

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13385 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Vikram Singh Meena Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Tejasvi Misra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶6

List revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Tejasvi Misra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ajay Singh, learned A.G.A.-I and perused the record.

¶8

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicantVikram Singh Meena, with the prayer to allow this application and quash the entire proceeding as well as impugned charge-sheet dated 23.08.2020 & cognizance/summoning order dated 30.09.2020 in Case No. 1022/11/2020 (State Vs. Vikram Singh Meena) arising out of Case Crime No. 040 of 2020, under Sections 354, 504, 506 I.P.C., pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Chhata, Mathura, with a further prayer that proceedings of the aforesaid case be stayed during the pendency of the present application.

¶9

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. 95 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 30.09.2020, 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.

¶10

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 30.09.2020 is on a printed proforma with blank spaces of the relevant things which have been filled in ink.

¶11

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.

¶12

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:-

¶13

"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:-

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and without going into the merits of the case as of now, the order dated 30.09.2020 is hereby set aside.

¶19

The application is allowed to this extent.

¶20

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.

¶21

Order Date :- 16.7.2024 AS Rathore

¶22

(Samit Gopal,J.)

¶23

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

Vikram Singh Meena v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikram Singh Meena 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

Sangam vs State of U.P.

X- Juvenile vs State of U.P. and Another

Vijendra Singh vs State of Up

Subhash Chand Mittal and Another vs State of Up and Another

Smt Sushila Devi vs State of U.P. and Another

Jagveer and 5 Others vs State of U.P. and Another