Paramod Kumar vs State Of U.P.
2021 Latest Caselaw 9411 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 49
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13392 of 2021
 

 
Applicant :- Paramod Kumar
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Ashwani Kumar Sachan,Saurabh Sachan
 

 
Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.

1. Heard Sri Saurabh Sachan, learned counsel for applicant and learned AGA for the State.

2. Sri Saurabh Sachan submits that summoning order dated 17.10.2018, passed by learned Additional Court No. 2, Gautam Buddh Nagar, in Case Crime No. 932 of 2018 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, is on a printed proforma and reveals that 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 Court No. 2, Gautam Buddh Nagar 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 several judgments in the case of Ankit Vs. State of U.P. & Another; 2009 (9) ADJ 778, Shakuntala Devi Vs. State of U.P. And 4 others passed in Application U/s 482 No. 11232 of 2018, Avdhesh Vs. State of U.P. And Another reported in [2019(6) ADJ 667], Dushyant Kumar Vs. State of U.P. And Others passed in Application U/s 482 No. 7206 of 2020, Ashu Rawat Vs. State of U.P. And Another passed in Application U/s 482 No. 13883 of 2020, Rishipal & others Vs. State of U.P. And Another [2019(3)ADJ 699].

4. Certified copy of the impugned 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 Additional Court No. 2, Gautam Buddh Nagar 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 summoning order dated 17.10.2018, 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 :- 3.8.2021

Vikram/-