Sanjeev And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 9289 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 49
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8012 of 2021
 

 
Applicant :- Sanjeev And 2 Others
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Srivastava,Virendra Kumar Srivastava
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.

1. Sri Virendra Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants submits that summoning order/cognizance order dated 01.04.2019 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra in Case Crime No.763 of 2018 under sections 353, 323, 504, 506, 332 IPC, Police Station-Malpura, District-Agra is mechanical and has been issued in a pre-typed/printed proforma without any application of mind. 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 summoning order.

2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the Judicial Magistrate did not apply his judicial mind at the time of passing the summoning order/cognizance order against the applicants as the impugned summoning order/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.

3. Certified copy of the impugned summoning order/cognizance order is annexed as Annexure-4 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 Magistrate has simply put his initial over his name without applying his judicial mind before passing the said order.

4. 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 summoning 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.

5. 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 summoning order/cognizance order dated 01.04.2019, is hereby quashed. Learned court below is directed to pass a fresh order on the complaint after applying his judicial mind.

6. In above terms, Application is disposed off.

Order Date :- 2.8.2021

Ashutosh