Firoj Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Lko and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:10583

Court No. - 18

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1391 of 2025

Applicant :- Firoj Ahmad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Lko And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Misra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

¶6

1-Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P./opposite party no.1 and perused the record.

¶7

2-The instant application has been preferred by the applicant with a prayer to quash the charge-sheet dated 17.04.2017, cognizance/summoning order dated 03.08.2017, nonbailable warrant dated 03.12.2024 and further proceeding of Case No. 3279 of 2017 arising out of Case Crime No. 128 of 2016, under Sections 406, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police StationCantt., District-Faizabad pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-Ist, Faizabad.

¶8

3-Brief facts of the case which are required to be stated are that opposite party no. 2 lodged F.I.R. on 16.05.2016 against the applicant Firoz Ahmad for the alleged offence under Sections 406, 504, 506 I.P.C., in which after culmination of investigation, charge-sheet dated 17.04.2017 has been submitted against the applicant, on which the learned Magistrate took cognizance and summoned him on 03.08.2017. Thereafter, on non-appearance of the applicant in the trial, non-bailable warrant has been issued against him.

¶9

4-The main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that learned Magistrate, without applying his

¶10

judicial mind, has taken the cognizance in the matter and summoned the applicant on printed proforma, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law and liable to be quashed. The said cognizance/summoning order is extracted hereinbelow:-

¶11

5-Learned A.G.A. has also conceded by submitting that the impugned cognizance/summoning order dated 03.08.2017 has been passed on a printed proforma by filling up the blanks, which has been prepared for summoning the accused after filing charge-sheet, hence the matter may be remanded to the concerned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate with the direction to pass a fresh order.

¶12

6-Having heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, it is relevant to mention that it is well settled that

¶13

before a Magistrate can be said to have taken cognizance of an offence, it is imperative that he must have taken notice of the accusations and applied his mind to the allegations made in the F.I.R. and the material filed along with chargesheet. It needs little emphasis that it is only when the Magistrate applies his mind and is satisfied that the allegations, if proved, would constitute an offence and decides to initiate proceedings against the alleged offender, that it can be positively stated that he has taken cognizance of the offence.

¶14

7-It is very strange that despite there being a series of decisions of the Apex Court and this Court disapproving such practice of passing orders on printed proforma by the judicial officers, it is very painful and unfortunate to see that applicant in the present case has been summoned by the Magistrate by an order in which blanks have been filled in on a printed proforma without applying judicial mind. This type of order has already been held unsustainable by this Court in the case of Ankit Vs. State of U.P. and another, JIC 2010 (1) 432 relying on in a number of decisions of the Apex Court. The relevant portion of the said decision, is extracted below:

¶15

"Although as held by this Court in the case of Megh Nath Guptas & Anr V State of U.P. And Anr, 2008 (62) ACC 826, in which reference has been made to the cases of Deputy Chief Controller Import and Export Vs Roshan Lal Agarwal, 2003 (4^) ACC 686 (SC), UP Pollution Control Board Vs Mohan Meakins, 2000 (2) JIC 159 (SC): AIR 2000 SC 1456 and Kanti Bhadra Vs State of West Bengal, 2000 (1) JIC 751 (SC): 2000 (40) ACC 441 (SC), 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 judicial

¶16

mind and even the order of taking cognizance cannot be passed in mechanical manner. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and the matter has to be sent back to the Court below for passing fresh order on the charge sheet after applying judicial mind."

¶17

(Emphasis supplied)

¶18

8-In view of the above, the conduct of the judicial officer concerned in passing orders on printed proforma by filling up the blanks without application of judicial mind is objectionable and deserves to be deprecated. The summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter and the order must reflect that Magistrate had applied his mind to the facts as well as law governing the issue.

¶19

9-In view of what has been stated above, the impugned cognizance/summoning order dated 03.08.2017 is hereby quashed.

¶20

10-Accordingly, the present application is allowed with a direction to the concerned Magistrate to pass fresh order after applying the judicial mind within four weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before it.

¶21

11-Office is directed to place a copy of this order before the Senior Registrar of this Court who shall place the same before Hon'ble Administrative Judge concerned where the officer is presently posted.

¶22

12-Copy of this order be also sent to the District Judge, Faizabad/Ayodhya for information.

¶23

Order Date :- 18.2.2025 Shubham

¶24

Digitally signed by :- SHUBHAM KUMAR AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Firoj Ahmad v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Firoj Ahmad v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Lko 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mohd. Azam Khan @ Mohhamad Azam Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Mohd. Akalim Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Rajesh Kumar Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Tarun Kumar Dwivedi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Lal Ji and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Narendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Deptt. of Home Lko.