Ravendra Singh Alias Shamsher Singh and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 41969 of 2025

Ravendra Singh Alias Shamsher Singh And 2 Others

ers	Versus			.....Applicant(s)
State of U.P. and Another				.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Sheo Sharm	Kinkar a	Singh,	Suryaprakash
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 78

¶6

HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.

¶8

The present application has been filed to quash the entire criminal proceedings of Case No.182 of 2021 (State vs. Rambharose Singh and Others), arising out of Case Crime No.228 of 2019, under section 3/4 of Public Gambling Act, 1867, Police Station Pashchim Shariara, District Kaushambi, including Chargesheet no.01/2022, dated 14.12.2019 as well as cognizance order dated 19.01.2021 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Kaushambi.

¶9

While assailing the impugned order, contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the Magistrate 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.

¶10

Relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Megh Nath Gupta & another vs. State of U.P. and another 2008 (62) ACC 826 and Deputy Chief Controller Import and Export vs. Roshan Lal Agrawal, 2003 (46) ACC 686 (SC) as well as decision of 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

¶11

NA528 No. 41969 of 2025

¶12

2

¶13

quashed on this ground alone.

¶14

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer but admitted the aforesaid fact that the order impugned has been passed on the printed proforma and therefore, keeping in view the decision in the case of Megh Nath Gupta (supra) , Roshan Lal Agarawal (supra) and 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

The certified copy of the order summoning the accused has been appended as Annexure- 2 of the paper book. On perusal of the above order, it is evident that it is a typed proforma where the blanks have been filled by Magistrate in handwriting, which leads to the conclusion that the Magistrate has passed the order in a mechanical manner without application of judicial mind.

¶17

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:

¶18

"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

¶19

NA528 No. 41969 of 2025

¶20

3

¶21

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."

¶22

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.

¶23

In view of the above, the present application is allowed. The order impugned dated 19.01.2021 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Kaushambi is hereby quashed. The Magistrate is directed to pass afresh and a well reasoned order after applying his judicial mind to the facts of the case.

¶24

(Vivek Kumar Singh,J.)

¶25

November 13, 2025

¶26

Nitendra

¶27

Digitally signed by :- NITENDRA TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ravendra Singh Alias Shamsher Singh and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravendra Singh Alias Shamsher Singh and 2 Others 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

Brijesh Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Pravez Alam and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Dayanand Yadav and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Jeete @ Jitendra vs State of U.P through Secretary(Home) U.P., Lucknow and Another

Meera Alias Reena vs State of U.P. and Another

Raju Verma vs State of U.P. and 3 Others