Satish Kumar Vats v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC8 Dec 2025NA528/41161/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 528 BNSS application quashing cognizance summoning order printed proforma blanks judicial mind mechanical order Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No. 2 Gautam Budh Nagar charge sheet 24.11.2017 Case No. 2664 of 2018 Case Crime 130 of 2016 Sections 420 406 504 506 467 468 471 IPC Police Station Kasna Satish Kumar Vats Ankit JIC 2010 (1) 432 fresh order apply judicial mind

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; impugned summoning/cognizance order dated 25.06.2018 of ACJM Court No. 2, Gautam Budh Nagar quashed; Magistrate directed to pass a fresh order after applying judicial mind. ¶¶22

Satish Kumar Vats vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Application allowed; impugned summoning/cognizance order dated 25.06.2018 of ACJM Court No. 2, Gautam Budh Nagar quashed; Magistrate directed to pass a fresh order after applying judicial mind.

¶¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether the summoning/cognizance order dated 25.06.2018, passed on a printed/typed proforma with hand-filled blanks and without application of judicial mind, was sustainable, or liable to be quashed along with the charge sheet dated 24.11.2017 and the entire proceedings of Case No. 2664 of 2018.

¶¶18

Court's answer

The summoning order dated 25.06.2018 is a typed proforma whose blanks were filled by a court employee and merely initialled by the Magistrate; consequently, the Magistrate passed the order mechanically without application of judicial mind.

¶¶18

Ratio / Principle

Passing judicial orders (including orders taking cognizance/summoning an accused) on printed proformas by filling blanks without judicial mind is objectionable and deprecated; summoning of an accused is a serious matter and the order must reflect the Magistrate's application of mind to the facts and law.

¶¶21

Key takeaways

On this ground, the Section 528 BNSS application is allowed and the impugned cognizance/summoning order dated 25.06.2018 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Gautam Budh Nagar is quashed.ratio¶¶22
The Magistrate is directed to pass a fresh cognizance/summoning order after applying judicial mind.ratio¶¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

ALLAHABAD HC (Sanjay Kumar Pachori, J.), Application u/s 528 BNSS No. 41161 of 2025, decided 08.12.2025 — ALLOWED. Petitioner (Satish Kumar Vats) sought quashing of the cognizance/summoning order dated 25.06.2018 of ACJM Court No. 2, Gautam Budh Nagar, the charge sheet dated 24.11.2017, and the entire proceedings of Case No. 2664 of 2018 (State vs. Satish and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 130 of 2016 (ss. 420, 406, 504, 506, 467, 468, 471 IPC, P.S. Kasna). Court found the summoning order to be a typed proforma whose blanks were hand-filled by a court employee and initialled by the Magistrate — a mechanical order passed without judicial mind; the conduct deprecated. Relying on Ankit v. State of U.P., JIC 2010 (1) 432 (whose extract rests on Apex Court decisions), the impugned order was quashed and the Magistrate directed to pass a fresh order applying judicial mind.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 41161 of 2025

Satish Kumar Vats

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State of U.P. and Another	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Abhishek Gupta
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶7

Court No. - 75

¶8

HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR PACHORI, J.

¶9

Delay in filing the present application has been explained.

¶10

Heard Shri Abhishek Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Rahul Pandey, learned brief holder for the State.

¶11

The present application under Section 528 of BNSS has been filed to quash the summoning/cognizance order dated 25.06.2018 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Gautam Budh Nagar including charge sheet dated 24.11.2017 as well as entire proceedings of case No. 2664 of 2018 (State vs. Satish and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 130 of 2016, under Sections 420, 406,. 504, 506, 467, 468, 471, I.P.C., Police Station Kasna, District Gautam Buddh Nagar.

¶12

While assailing the impugned order, contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Gautam Budh Nagar has not applied judicial mind in passing the order as the order has been made on a printed proforma, in which the name of the accused, case crime number and Section has been filled up by hand.

¶13

Relying upon the decision of this Court in Ankit Vs. State of U.P. and another, JIC 2010 (1) 432 , submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the order impugned being on a printed proforma is clearly without application of judicial mind and hence, is liable to be quashed on this ground alone.

¶14

Learned AGA has also admitted that the order impugned has been passed on the printed proforma and therefore, keeping in view the decision in the case of Ankit (supra), the Magistrate concerned may be directed to pass a fresh order.

¶15

I have considered the arguments so advanced by learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. and also perused the record.

¶16

NA528 No. 41161 of 2025

¶17

¶18

The certified copy of the order summoning the accused has been appended as annexure-2 at page-33 of the paper book. From a perusal of the above order, it is evident that it is a typed proforma where only information of case number, name of parties, section, date and next date is to be filled in handwriting. It appears that the blanks in the printed proforma have been filled up by some court employee and the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Gautam Budh Nagar has thereafter just put his initial, which leads to the conclusion that the Magistrate has passed the order in a mechanical manner without application of judicial mind.

¶19

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 (supra) relying on in a number of decisions of the Apex Court. The relevant portion of the said decision, is extracted below:

¶20

"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 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."

¶21

In view of the above, the conduct of the judicial officers 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 applicable thereto.

¶22

In view of what has been stated above, the present application is allowed. The order impugned dated 25.06.2018 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Gautam Budh Nagar is, hereby, quashed. The Magistrate is directed to pass fresh order after applying the judicial mind.

¶23

December 8, 2025

¶24

(Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.)

¶25

MAA/-

¶26

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD AZAD ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Satish Kumar Vats v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish Kumar Vats v. State of U.P. 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

Similar cases

Pankaj Patel and 2 Others vs State of Up

Shyama Charan and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Inder vs State of Up

Mudassir vs State of U.P.

Rajesh Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Dhananjay Singh and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another