Allowed

Praduman Kumar Prasad @ Pradhuman Kumar Prasad v. The State Of Bihar

Patna HC10 Jul 2024CR. MISC./51491/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court quashed criminal proceedings based on an order of cognizance passed by a Magistrate using a printed proforma lacking application of mind. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that mechanical orders violating judicial norms must be set aside.

What did the court decide?

The order of cognizance dated 4th May 2015 is set aside, and the criminal case against the petitioner is quashed.

Praduman Kumar Prasad @ Pradhuman Kumar Prasad… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Patna HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.51491 of 2018

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-794 Year-2012 Thana- Bettiah City District- West Champaran

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Praduman Kumar Prasad @ Pradhuman Kumar Prasad, Son of Late Krishna Deo Prasad, resident of Village- Mohammadpur, P.S.- Patahi, District- East Champaran.

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shashank Chandra, Advocate Ms. Smriti Verma, Advocate Mr. Nitish Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s: Smt. Meena Singh, Advocate ======================================================

¶8

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI ORAL ORDER

¶9

2 10-07-2024

¶10

The petitioner has filed the instant Miscellaneous Case under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying for quashing of the proceedings in connection with Tr. No. 1454 of 2017, arising out of Bettiah Town P. S. Case No. 794 of 2012, dated 2^nd of November, 2012, presently pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Bettiah, West Champaran. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah, West Champaran by order dated 4^th of May, 2015 took cognizance of offence against the petitioner under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 408 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶11

It is alleged by the petitioner that without appreciating the fact that no offence under the aforesaid penal provisions was

¶12

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51491 of 2018(2) dt.10-07-2024 2/8

¶13

made out against him as a result of dishonour of cheque, as the said alleged cheque was issued by the informant himself in favour of the petitioner and the amount withdrawn was spent to meet the office expenses in terms of the direction of the superior authority of the petitioner, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah, West Champaran has taken cognizance against him.

¶14

It is pertinent to mention that after taking cognizance, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah, West Champaran transferred the case for trial and disposal to the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Bettiah, West Champaran.

¶15

Before describing the issue involved in the instant Miscellaneous Case, this Court finds it necessary to state the following facts: -

¶16

The informant issued a bearer cheque in the name of the petitioner in order to withdraw Rs. 12,000/- on 21^st of September, 2010 from the Punjab National Bank. The petitioner manipulated the amount of the said cheque by writing of “2” in front of 12,000/-, making the said cheque of Rs. 2,12,000/- and withdrew the entire money from the Bank. The informant, being the District Welfare Officer, lodged an F.I.R. against the petitioner and police took up the case for investigation. After completion of investigation, police submitted charge-sheet

¶17

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51491 of 2018(2) dt.10-07-2024 3/8

¶18

against the petitioner, on the basis of which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 408 of the Indian Penal Code by order dated 4^th of May, 2015.

¶19

It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the order of cognizance passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah, West Champaran on 4^th of May, 2015 was not passed in accordance with law. Firstly, the cognizance was taken without assigning any reason on the printed format which is not sustainable.

¶20

In Abdul Rasheed v. State of U.P. , reported in (2010) 3 JIC 761 (Allahabad) , it is held by the Allahabad High Court that the Judicial Officers cannot be allowed to pass order in a mechanical manner either by filling in blank portions on a printed format or by affixing ready-made seal etc. of the order on a plain paper. Such tendency must be deprecated and cannot be allowed to perpetuate. This reflects not only lack of application of mind to the facts of the case but is also against the settled judicial norms. Therefore, this practice must be stopped forthwith.

¶21

The same decision has been reiterated in a subsequent case, viz ., Satya Pal v. State of U.P. through Principal

¶22

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51491 of 2018(2) dt.10-07-2024 4/8

¶23

Secretary, Home, Lucknow & Anr. ( Application under Section 482, No. 2083 of 2023 ) decided on 1^st of March, 2023.

¶24

This issue came up before this Court for consideration in Cr. Miscellaneous No. 40702 of 2015, Dharmesh Prasad Verma v. The State of Bihar , reported in 2017(1)PLJR401 . In paragraph 25 of the aforesaid judgement, this Court found proforma order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gaya, dated 14^th of July, 2015. The Hon'ble Judge quoted the relevant portion of the order in his solemn judgement. Thereafter, in paragraph no. 27 to 30, the Hon'ble Judge discussed in detail and came to the finding that the order of cognizance passed by the learned Magistrate in a printed proforma shows absence of application of mind. The relevant paragraph nos. 27 to 30 is quoted below.

¶25

“27. The need for proper application of mind by the courts at the stage of summoning has been highlighted by the Supreme Court in Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Another Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and Others, reported in (1998) 5 SCC 749,in para 28as follows:-

¶26

“28. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the

¶27

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51491 of 2018(2) dt.10-07-2024 5/8

¶28

complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. The Magistrate has to carefully scrutinize the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused.”

¶29

28. It would be trite to remark that taking of cognizance and summoning of accused in a criminal case has serious consequence on the liberty of an accused, as pursuant to such order, he is made to take bail and face trial for a criminal offence. An order of cognizance passed in a standardized format by filling up the only perfunctory details buttress an ex facie lack of application of mind in the order of taking cognizance and

¶30

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51491 of 2018(2) dt.10-07-2024 6/8

¶31

summoning an accused.

¶32

29. In Fakhruddin Ahmad Vs. State of Uttaranchal and Another, reported in (2008) 17 SCC 157, once again, in paragraph 17, the Supreme Court has held as follows:-

¶33

“17. Nevertheless, it is well settled that 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 complaint or in the police report or the information received from a source other than a police report, as the case may be, and the material filed therewith. 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. Cognizance is in regard to the offence and not the offender.”

¶34

30. Keeping in mind the discussions made, hereinabove and the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Another (supra) and Fakhruddin Ahmad (supra), this Court deems it fit and proper to direct that in future Judicial Officers shall refrain from passing orders in formats prepared in advance containing blanks to be filled in with

¶35

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51491 of 2018(2) dt.10-07-2024 7/8

¶36

formal details, as has been done in the present case. The Judicial Officers are further directed to pass orders of taking cognizance and summoning accused in a criminal case only after applying their judicial mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto.”

¶37

Recently, in the case of Bishnu Kumar Sureka & Ors.

¶38

v. State of Bihar & Anr. , reported in 2023(5)BLJ643 , a Coordinate Bench of this Court quashed the order of cognizance on the similar ground that the order was not passed on application of mind and it was mechanically passed by filling in a printed proforma.

¶39

The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah, West Champaran in his order of cognizance, dated 4^th of May, 2015 has committed the same error, which cannot be rectified.

¶40

For the reasons stated above, this Court has no other alternative but to hold that the order of cognizance is bad in law and liable to be set aside.

¶41

Accordingly, the order, dated 4^th of May, 2015, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah, West Champaran is set aside.

¶42

As the order of cognizance in Tr. No. 1454 of 2017, arising out of Bettiah Town P. S. Case No. 794 of 2012, dated 2^nd of November, 2012 is set aside, the criminal case against the

¶43

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51491 of 2018(2) dt.10-07-2024 8/8

¶44

petitioner is also quashed.

¶45