Gulzar vs State Of U.P.
2018 Latest Caselaw 2793 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 50
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 29684 of 2018
 

 
Applicant :- Gulzar
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Raj Pandey
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings of Complaint Case No. 6323 of 2016, under sections 4/21 Mines and Mineral Act, 1957, P.S. Baghpat, District Baghpat (State Vs. Gulzar), pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat.

Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the impugned order is a proforma order passed by the learned Magistrate without due application of mind in cyclostyled manner; that passing of such in cyclostyled proforma summoning order is unwarranted under law, as it has been passed over a proforma, by filling the gaps.

Learned A.G.A. supportedthe impugned order dated 13.10.2016.

Upon hearing parties counsels and perusing the record, I find that undisputedly the summoning order dated 13.10.2016 at Annexure-2, has been passed upon a proforma by filling the gaps which is not permissible in law.

In the case of Ankit Vs. State of U.P., reported in 2009 (67) ACC, Page 532 and again in the case of Saurabh Deewana Vs. State of U.P., reported in A.D.J., 2010 (3) 622, this court has held that order of cognizance upon the submission of chargesheet, appears to have been passed on a printed proforma by filling in the gaps by the court official and putting of initials by the Magistrate which is not permissible, as it reflects non-application of mind by the Magistrate.

In this case also the impugned proforma order reflects that it has been passed upon filling of gaps by court officials and putting of initials by the learned Magistrate which is a case of sheer non-application of mind by the Magistrate in passing of the proforma order. Such an order if allowed to stand may cause miscarriage of justice and is liable to be quashed.

In view of the discussions made above, the application under Section 482 Cr.PC. is disposed of by quashing the impugned order dated 13.10.2016 with a direction to the learned Magistrate for passing afresh and speaking order upon due application of mind on the Complaint Case no. 6323 of 2016, which is required to be expeditiously in accordance with law.

Order Date :- 25.9.2018

Vibha