Jitendra Yadav And 2 Other vs State Of U.P. And Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 10283 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 49
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10017 of 2021
 

 
Applicant :- Jitendra Yadav And 2 Other
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Kumar
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.

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

2. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that cognizance order dated 23.07.2019 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi, in Case No.1996 of 2019 arising out of Case Crime No.149 of 2019 (State vs. Jitendra Yadav & Others), under Sections 452, 323, 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Jhansi, 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 learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi did not apply his judicial mind at the time of passing the cognizance order against the applicants 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-5 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 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi 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 applicants has substance. The use of blanks printed proforma in passing the judicial order is not proper and the order of cognizance against the applicants has been passed without application of judicial mind, which is substantiated by the fact that even the date has 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 23.07.2019, 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 :- 13.8.2021

Ravi/-