Allowed¶15

Mohammad Raza Alias Kallu and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC6 May 2025NA528/5275/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Non-application of mind; cognizance on printed proforma; summoning order quashed; Section 528 BNSS application; Sections 498A, 323, 506 IPC; 3/4 D.P. Act; case crime No. 720 of 2023; charge sheet dated 21.1.2024; P.S. Kotwali Gursahaiganj, Kannauj; Additional Civil Judge (S.D.)/A.C.J.M.; Amit Kumar Dwivedi Application u/s 482 No. 35443 of 2023; fresh cognizance within one month; Registrar (Compliance); Allahabad High Court 2025.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; cognizance/summoning order dated 13.9.2024 in Case No. 30145/2024 (case crime No. 720 of 2023) quashed; court below directed to take fresh cognizance after perusing the record within one month; Registrar (Compliance) to communicate the order to the Additional Civil Judge (S.D.)/A.C.J.M., Kannauj for compliance. ¶15

Mohammad Raza Alias Kallu and 6 Others Vs State of U.P… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether the summoning/cognizance order passed by the court below by merely filling up a printed proforma reflects non-application of mind, warranting quashal of the cognizance order dated 13.9.2024 and the underlying proceedings.

¶8

Court's answer

While passing the impugned summoning order, the court below did not apply its mind and simply filled up and signed the printed proforma regarding cognizance/summoning of the accused.

¶10

Ratio / Principle

Taking cognizance on a printed proforma is absolutely non-application of mind and erroneous; accordingly, the cognizance order dated 13.9.2024 passed in Case No. 30145/2024, case crime No. 720 of 2023, is quashed.

¶13

Key takeaways

The court below is directed to pass a fresh order after perusing the record within one month from the date of production of a copy of this order.ratio¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, J.), Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 5275 of 2025, order dated 7.5.2025 — Quashal granted: cognizance/summoning order dated 13.9.2024 passed in Case No. 30145/2024 (case crime No. 720 of 2023, Sections 498A, 323, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Kotwali Gursahaiganj, District Kannauj) was found to have been made by merely filling up and signing a printed proforma, amounting to absolute non-application of mind. Relying on this Court's earlier decision in Amit Kumar Dwivedi and another vs. State of U.P. and another (Application u/s 482 No. 35443 of 2023, ¶9 quoted), the Court quashed the cognizance order dated 13.9.2024, directed the trial Magistrate to pass a fresh order after perusing the record within one month, and Registrar (Compliance) was directed to communicate the order for compliance.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:73062

¶2

Court No. - 75

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 5275 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Mohammad Raza Alias Kallu And 6 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Lavkush Kumar Bhatt Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Lavkush Kr. Bhatt, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Rajeev Kr. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

The instant application has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 21.1.2024, summoning order dated 13.9.2024 as well as entire proceeding of Case No. 30145/2024, case crime No. 720 of 2023, under Sections 498A, 323, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Kotwali Gursahaiganj, District Kannauj, pending before Additional Civil Judge (S.D.)/A.C.J.M., Kannauj.

¶8

Contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that the impugned summoning order shows that while taking cognizance the court below did not apply its mind and the same was passed only by filling up the printed proforma.

¶9

Though learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer, he could not dispute the aforesaid fact.

¶10

Considering the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties as well as on perusal of record, it appears that while passing the impugned summoning order, the court below did not apply its mind and simply filled up and signed the printed proforma, regarding cognizance/summoning of the accused.

¶11

This Court in a number of cases has deprecated such practice on the part of the judicial officers. This Court in the case of Amit Kumar Dwivedi and another vs. State of U.P. and another; Application u/s 482 No. 35443 of 2023 has already considered this issue and after relying upon various judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as that of this High Court, this Court has observed that filling up the date and case crime number in printed proforma and signing the same is absolutely non-application of mind. Paragraph No.9 of the Amit Kumar Dwivedi (supra) is quoted as under:-

¶12

"9. In view of above legal position, this Court is of the view that merely signing and filling up the date and case crime number in printed proforma is absolutely non-application of mind because the cognizance order must reflect the prima facie opinion of the learned Magistrate on the material collected during investigation. Order of issuance of process is not an empty formality, it may affect the personal liberty of a person. Article 21 of Constitution of India guarantees personal liberty of a person and same cannot be deprived of, without due procedure of law. Apart from this, summoning of accused to appear before criminal court after taking cognizance is a serious matter, affecting the dignity, self-respect and image in society. Therefore, proper process by the criminal court must be followed at the time of taking cognizance and summoning the accused."

¶13

In view of the above legal position, taking cognizance on a printed proforma is absolutely non application of mind and erroneous, therefore, the cognizance order dated 13.9.2024 passed in Case No. 30145/2024, case crime No. 720 of 2023, under Sections 498A, 323, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Kotwali Gursahaiganj, District Kannauj, is hereby quashed.

¶14

The court below is directed to pass a fresh order after perusing the record within a period of one month from the date of production of a copy of this order.

¶15

With the aforesaid direction, the application is allowed .

¶16

Registrar (Compliance) is directed to communicate this order to the Additional Civil Judge (S.D.)/A.C.J.M., Kannauj for compliance.

¶17

Order Date :- 7.5.2025 Vandana

¶18

Digitally signed by :- VANDANA GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mohammad Raza Alias Kallu and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Raza Alias Kallu and 6 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases