Quashed

Chandrabhan Bind and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC29 Aug 2024A482/16770/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application u/s 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court set aside a s. 482 summoning order passed on a printed proforma without naming accused persons. The court held that such mechanical orders lacking application of judicial mind must be quashed and remitted.

What did the court decide?

Impugned cognizance/summoning order dated 04.08.2023 set aside and matter remitted to lower court to pass order afresh.

Chandrabhan Bind and 3 Others vs State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:148896

¶2

Court No. - 76

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16770 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Chandrabhan Bind And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Lakshmi Kant Pandey,Sandeep Kumar Pandey

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material brought on record.

¶8

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the entire proceedings, including charge sheet dated 18.03.2023 as well as summoning order dated 04.08.2023, of N.C.R. No. 054 of 2022, under Sections - 323, 504 I.P.C., Police Station- Durgaganj, District-Bhadohi, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate-Ist, Gyanpur, Bhadohi.

¶9

It is submitted by learned counsel for applicants that police have submitted charge-sheet under section - 323, 504 I.P.C. It was submitted that initially a non-cognizable report was lodged and no permission under Section - 155 (2) Cr.P.C. was obtained before investigation. It is further submitted that impugned cognizance/summoning order has been passed on a printed proforma by merely filling the details of the case like case number, section, crime number and police station etc. Even names of accused persons have not been mentioned in the said impugned summoning order. Lastly, it was submitted that the impugned cognizance/summoning order has been passed in a mechanical manner without application of judicial mind.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. submits that a prima-facie case is made out against the applicants but it could not be disputed that impugned summoning order has been passed on a printed proforma by filling details of the case.

¶11

I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

¶12

Perusal of record shows that the impugned cognizance and summoning order dated 04.08.2023 has been passed on a printed proforma and merely details of case like Sections, Police Station, Crime Number and Next Date of Listing were filled in the said proforma. Even the names of accused persons are not mentioned in the said order. It is well settled that summoning order has to be passed after considering relevant material and applying judicial mind. In the instant case, it is apparent that the impugned order has been passed in a mechanical way without applying judicial mind.

¶13

It may be stated that there are hundreds of decisions of this Court to the effect that the summoning order cannot be passed on a printed proforma by merely filling in the details of the case, rather the summoning order must be passed by applying judicial mind. To mention a few cases, reference may be made to the case of Ankit Vs. State of U.P., J.I.C. 2010 (1) 432, Basasudin and others Vs. State of U.P., 2011 (1) JIC 335 All, Abdul Rashid and others Vs. State of U.P., 2010 (3) JIC 7661 All, Surender Kumar & others Vs. State of U.P., 2021 (7) ADJ 61, Virendra Kumar Bajpai Vs. State of U.P. (Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No.7972/2022) and Ram Kewal Vs. State of U.P., 2024:AHCLKO:5736 .

¶14

It is matter of concern that despite repeated directions of this Court, summoning order are being passed by some courts on proforma by merely filling in the bare basic details of the case.

¶15

Summoning of a person as accused is a serious matter and thus, it must reflect the application of judicial mind. The practice of passing summoning orders on printed proforma by merely filling the details of the case must be stopped forthwith.

¶16

In view of the aforesaid, the impugned cognizance/summoning order dated 04.08.2023, passed by the Judicial Magistrate-Ist, Gyanpur, Bhadohi is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the court concerned to pass the order on cognizance and summoning afresh expeditiously in accordance with law.

¶17

The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is finally disposed of in above terms.

¶18

Order Date :- 12.9.2024

¶19

S Rawat

¶20

Digitally signed by :- SHOBHIT RAWAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Chandrabhan Bind and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrabhan Bind and 3 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vikas Goel vs State of U.P. and Another

Muntzir vs State of U.P. and Another

Rakesh Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Shamim Haider and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Zahid and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Salman and 6 Others vs State of U.P. and Another