Chote Lal and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Lko. and Another

Court No. - 14 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1296 of 2022 Appellant :- Chote Lal And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Vinay Kumar Yadav,Piyush Chandra Agarwal,Rajesh Tiwari,Rajnish Ojha Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Jaikaran Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.

¶1Heard Sri Rajesh Tiwari, Advocate holding brief of Sri Piyush Chandra Agarwal, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Mohd. M.A. Khan, learned A.G.A. for State-respondent No.1 and perused the record.

¶2However, no one appears on behalf of respondent No.2 despite the fact that name of Sri Jaikaran has been shown in the cause list.

¶3The instant appeal under Section 14-A (1) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been filed by the appellants/applicants against the order dated

07.08.2020 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Raebareli in Special Sessions Trial No.894 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime No.422 of 2019 under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Sections 3(1)(da) and 3(1)(dha) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Lalganj, District Raebareli.

¶4Foremost submission of learned counsel for the appellants is that the Magistrate did not apply his judicial mind at the time of passing the summoning order against the appellants because the impugned summoning order has been passed on a printed proforma, which is not permissible under law. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance upon the judgment in the case of Ankit Vs. State of U.P. & Another; 2009 (9) ADJ 778.

¶5Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that the first information report does not disclose any cognizable offence against the appellants and the investigation of the matter was carried out in a routine and casual manner and a chargesheet has been filed against the appellants without collecting credible evidence. He has further submitted that the present impugned criminal proceeding is nothing but malicious prosecution and an abuse of process of the Court, therefore, impugned summoning order is liable to be quashed.

¶6Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the aforesaid contention of learned counsel for the appellants. However, he could not dispute the fact that the impugned summoning order dated

07.08.2020, which is annexed as Annexure No.4 to the appeal, has been passed on a printed proforma, wherein the name of accused person and sections has been filed in the blank spaces.

¶7Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Darshan Singh Ram Kishan v. State of Maharashtra reported in MANU/SC/0089/1971: (1971) 2 SCC 654 has held as under:- "8. As provided by Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a Magistrate may take cognizance of an offence either, (a) upon receiving a complaint, or (b) upon a police report, or (c) upon information received from a person other than a police ofÏcer or even upon his own information or suspicion that such an offence has been committed. As has often been held, taking cognizance does not involve any formal action or indeed action of any kind but occurs as soon as a Magistrate applies his mind to the suspected commission of an offence. Cognizance, therefore, takes place at a point when a Magistrate first takes judicial notice of an offence. This is the position whether the Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence on a complaint, or on a police report, or upon information of a person other than a police ofÏcer. Therefore, when a Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence upon a police report, prima facie he does so of the offence or offences disclosed in such report."

¶8In Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation, AIR 2015 SC 923 (Three Judges Bench) Hon,ble Apex Court held as under: "47. However, the words "sufÏcient grounds for proceeding" appearing in the Section are of immense importance. It is these words which amply suggest that an opinion is to be formed only after due application of mind that there is sufÏcient basis for proceeding against the said accused and formation of such an opinion is to be stated in the order itself.."

¶9Therefore, it is essential that due application of mind should be reflected from the order taking cognizance.

¶10This Court in the case of Ankit vs. State of U.P. (supra) in paragraph nos.10 & 11 has held as under:- "10. Below aforesaid sentence, the seal of the Court containing name of Sri Talevar Singh, the then Judicial Magistrate-III, has been afÏxed and the learned Magistrate has put his short signature (initial) over his name. The manner in which the impugned order has been prepared shows that the learned Magistrate did not at all apply his judicial mind at the time of passing this order and after the blanks were filled up by some employee of the Court, he has put his initial on the seal of the Court. This method of passing judicial order is wholly illegal. If for the shake of argument, it is assumed that the blanks on the printed proforma were filled up in the handwriting of learned Magistrate, even then the impugned order would be illegal and invalid, because order of taking cognizance or any other judicial order cannot be passed by filling up blanks on the printed proforma. Although as held by this Court in the case of Megh Nath Gupta v. State of U.P., [2008 (62) ACC 826.] in which reference has been made to the cases of Deputy Chief Controller Import and Export v. Roshan Lal Agrawal, [2003 (46) ACC 686 (SC).] U.P. Pollution Control Board v. Mohan Meakins, [(2000) 3 SCC 745 : AIR 2000 SC 1456.] and Kanti Bhadra v. State of West Bengal, [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.

¶11Consequently, the application under section 482 is allowed and impugned order is set aside. The learned Magistrate concerned is directed to pass fresh order on the charge-sheet in Criminal Case No. 252 of 2009 (State v. Ankit) arising out of Case Crime No. 202 of 2008 of P.S. Gagal Hedi, District Saharanpur."

¶11It is thus, abundantly clear that the use of blank printed proforma in passing the judicial order and that too while passing the impugned summoning order cannot be said to reflect the application of judicial mind while passing impugned summoning order.

¶12In view of the aforesaid overall facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned summoning order dated 07.08.2020, cannot be legally sustained because of non-application of judicial mind which has resulted in miscarriage of justice.

¶13Consequently, the instant appeal is allowed and the impugned summoning order dated

07.08.2020, passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Raebareli is, hereby, quashed. The learned trial court concerned shall be at liberty to pass fresh order on the charge-sheet in Case Crime No.422 of 2019 under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Sections 3(1)(da) and 3(1)(dha) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Lalganj, District Raebareli. (Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I, J.) Order Date :- 17.10.2024 Shubhankar High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench