Km. Kairunnisha And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 10774 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 49
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4298 of 2021
 

 
Applicant :- Km. Kairunnisha And 3 Others
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.

1. Heard Sri Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for applicants and Sri Nagendra Srivastava, learned AGA for the State.

2. Sri Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh submits that summoning order dated 17.10.2020, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate 1st, Amroha in Crminal Case No. 2115 of 2020, crime no. 322 of 2019 under section 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 452 IPC, police station Bachhraun District Amroha is on a printed proforma and reveals non-application of mind while taking cognizance of the offence. He places reliance on the decision of this Court in Application U/S 438 No. 5525 of 2020 and 13883 of 2020 and prays for quashing of the cognizance order.

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate 1st, Amroha did not apply his judicial mind at the time of passing the summoning order against the applicant as 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 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 summoning order is annexed as Annexure-7 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. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate 1st, Amroha 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 Vs. State of U.P. & Another(supra), the impugned cognizance order dated 01.09.2020, is hereby quashed. Learned court below is directed to pass a fresh order on the complaint after applying his judicial mind.

7. In above terms, petition is disposed off.

Order Date :- 24.8.2021

S.K.S.