Shams Alam and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 89 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 40119 of 2023 Applicant :- Shams Alam And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Swapnil Kumar Yadav,Suman Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶2This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant to quash the impugned charge sheet dated 19.11.2015 and cognizance order dated

10.11.2022 in Case No.2157 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime No.0172 of 2015 (State vs. Shams Alam & others), under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station-Didarganj, District-Azamgarh, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court no.23, Azamgarh.

¶3It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that impugned cognizance/summoning order has been passed on a printed proforma by filling the blanks and it has been passed without application of judicial mind and as such, it is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Ankit Vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in 2009(9) ADJ page 778.

¶4On the basis of aforesaid judgment, it has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that summoning of accused in criminal case is a serious matter and the order impugned reflects that the Magistrate had not applied its judicial mind, as in the present case the impugned cognizance/summoning order has been passed on printed proforma, which clearly indicates that the same has been passed without applying judicial mind and the learned Magistrate only put its signature at the bottom of order.

¶5On the other hand, learned AGA has submitted that summoning order has been passed by the learned Magistrate after considering the material which are available on record, but he could not dispute the fact that the order taking cognizance has been passed on the printed proforma.

¶6The present case is finally decided at the admission stage itself without issuing notice to the opposite party no.2.

¶7From bare perusal of impugned cognizance/summoning order, it is apparent that it has been passed on a printed proforma by filling the blanks and it appears that the blanks were filled up by some staff of the concerned Magistrate and the concerned Magistrate has only put its initial at the bottom of summoning order.

¶8The law on this point is well settled that prior to taking cognizance and issuing summons to the accused-persons, the concerned Magistrate has to apply its judicial mind and that the cognizance/summoning order cannot be passed in a mechanical manner.

¶9In view of above, since impugned cognizance/summoning order has been passed on a printed proforma by filling the blanks without application of judicial mind and as such, it is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

¶10Accordingly the application under section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. The impugned cognizance/summoning order dated 10.11.2022 is hereby quashed.

¶11The concerned Magistrate is directed to pass a fresh order regarding cognizance as well as summoning of the applicant in the aforesaid case in accordance with law, after applying its judicial mind within a period of one month from the date of production of a copy of this order. Order Date :- 1.11.2023 SKD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad