Smt Geeta Dev vs State Of U.P. And Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 10216 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 49
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11265 of 2021
 

 
Applicant :- Smt Geeta Dev
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Mahesh Chand Sharma
 

 
Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.

1. Heard Sri Arvind Kumar, learned counsel for applicant and learned AGA for the State.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that cognizance order dated 23.12.2020, passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge POCSO Act, Hapur, in Case Crime No. 405 of 2020, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 452, 354, 354 K, 354 Kha IPC, Section 7/8 of POCSO Act and 3(2)(Va) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Garh, Mukteshwar, District Hapur, is on a printed proforma and reveals non-application of mind while taking cognizance of the offence.

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the learnedAdditional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge POCSO Act, Hapur did not apply his judicial mind at the time of passing the cognizance order against the applicant as the impugned cognizance order has been passed on a printed proforma, which is not permissible under law. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment in the case of Ankit Vs. State of U.P. & Another; 2009 (9) ADJ 778.

4. Certified copy of the impugned cognizance order is annexed as Annexure-9 to the affidavit which goes to show that the order has been passed on a printed proforma by filling up the blanks. Blanks on the printed proforma appear to have been filled by the court employee. Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge POCSO Act, Hapur has simply put his initial over his name without applying his judicial mind before passing the said order.

5. The argument advanced on behalf of applicant has substance. The use of blanks printed proforma in passing the judicial order is not proper and the order of cognizance the applicant has been passed without application of judicial mind, which is substantiated by the fact that even the date has not been mentioned filling up the blanks which has been left in the rubber stamp for mentioning the date of appearance.

6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, stated above and the law laid down in case of Ankit (supra), the impugned cognizance order dated 23.12.2020, is hereby quashed.

7. Learned court below is directed to pass a fresh order on the complaint after applying his judicial mind.

8. In above terms, petition is disposed off.

Order Date :- 12.8.2021

Ravi/-