Partly allowed

Tarun Agrawal v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC13 Aug 2024A482/20316/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside a summoning order passed on a printed proforma by the trial court as it reflected no application of mind. The application was allowed to the extent of setting aside that specific order, with directions to the trial court to pass a fresh order within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

Summoning order dated 26.7.2019 set aside; application allowed to that extent; matter remanded to trial court to pass fresh order within three weeks.

Tarun Agrawal vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:131100

¶2

Court No. - 77

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 20316 of 2024 Applicant :- Tarun Agrawal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Jeetendra Kumar Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Jeetendra Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Birendra Pratap Singh, learned State counsel and perused the record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 has been filed by the applicant- Tarun Agrawal with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding of Case No. 2023 of 2019 (State Vs. Smt .Ranu Yadav and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 926 of 2016, u/s 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 IPC, P.S. Nawabad, District Jhansi pending in the court of C.J.M. Jhansi and charge sheet dated 17.6.2018 and cognizance as well as summoning order dated 26.7.2019 passed by C.J.M. Jhansi and further to stay the further proceedings of aforesaid case.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the entire allegations as levelled against the applicants are false and concocted. It is argued that charge sheet in the present matter has been submitted without any cogent evidence. The concerned trial court has passed summoning order on 26.7.2019 which is annexure 1 to the affidavit which is on a printed proforma by filling up the name of the applicant and other details which shows that there is total non application of mind. It is argued that no offence is made out against the applicant.

¶8

Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing.

¶9

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. The summoning order dated 26.7.2019 passed in the present matter is on a cyclostyled proforma in which the details have been filled with ink.

¶10

In the case of Amit Jani vs. State of U.P. and others: (2020) 5

¶11

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 summoning order dated 26.7.2019 is hereby set aside.

¶18

The present application is allowed to this extent.

¶19

The matter is remanded back to the trial court to pass fresh order in accordance with law within three weeks from today.

¶20

(Samit Gopal, J.)

¶21

Order Date :- 13.8.2024 Gaurav Kuls

¶22

Digitally signed by :- GAURAV KULSHRESTHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Tarun Agrawal v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tarun Agrawal 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

Vikas Sharma and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Ajay Kumar Shukla vs State of U.P. and Another

Vivek Gupta and 10 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Rahis vs State of U.P. and Another

Vinay Kumar Yadav vs State of Up and Another

Vikas Alias Vijay and Another vs State of Up and Another