Allahabad High Court
Sanjay And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 19 January, 2021
Bench: Suresh Kumar Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 87
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 654 of 2021
Applicant :- Sanjay And 3 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Ankit Agarval
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and the learned A.G.A.
This application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant to quash the summoning order dated 1.10.2019 as well as charge-sheet dated 18.9.2019 in Case No. 376 of 2019 (Sanjay & Another Vs. State & Other) arising out of Case Crime No. 376 of 2019 under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 325, 354, 452, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Kosikalan, District Mathura pending before the court of Judicial Magistrate, Chhata, District Mathura.
As per allegation in the F.I.R., the opposite party no. 2, Brahama Nand, lodged an F.I.R. against the applicants with allegation that co-accused, Nem Chand is the real uncle of opposite party no. 2 and due to property dispute some animosity is going on between them. On 1.7.2019 when Dharmendra was sleeping with his cousin on the roof of his house, then accused persons entered into Dharmendra's house armed with lathi, danda and with intention to kill them attacked upon Jagvir and co-accused, Narendra and Sanjay outraged modesty of Seema and Pushpa. After lodging the First Information Report, the investigation was conducted by the investigation officer and after recording the statements of injured persons, charge-sheet was filed against the applicants on 28.9.2019.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that learned Magistrate has passed the cognizance order in a mechanical manner on printed proforma without applying his judicial mind and summoned the nominated accused persons to face trial. Applicants have no concerned with the alleged offence and summoning order passed by the lower court is without application of judicial mind in printed proforma, hence summoning order is liable to be set aside. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that in the aforesaid cognizance order, the learned Magistrate interpreted that he has received the charge-sheet under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 325, 354, 452, 506 I.P.C. against the applicants. He further indicated that cognizance was taken and directed the office to register the case and issued process to the applicants. Such cognizance order is in printed proforma. It is further submitted that the learned Magistrate has also not indicated in the aforesaid order that he was of the view that there was sufficient ground to proceed with the case. In the absence of these material aspects, it cannot be said that the learned Magistrate has applied his judicial mind to the fact of the case. Learned counsel for the applicants also relied upon the following judgments:-
1. Naheem and seven others Vs. State of U.P. and Another (Application under section 482 No. 19131 of 2020).
2. Chhotu and four Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another (Application under section 482 No. 843 of 2020).
3. Vishnu Kumar Gupta and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Another (Application under section 482 No. 41617 of 2019).
After hearing rival submission of the learned counsel for the applicants and the learned A.G.A. and also going through the records of the present application, this court finds that it is well settled that a Magistrate can be said to have taken cognizance of an offence, if he has taken judicial notice of the accusation and apply his judicial mind to the allegation made in the police report or the information received otherwise and the material filed therewith. In other words, when a Magistrate applies his mind to the facts of the case contained in the police report and material collected during the investigation by the I.O. and also be satisfied that allegation constitute an offence and decide to initiate proceeding against the accused, he can be said to have taken coginzance of the offence.
It is also well settled that at the stage of taking cognizance of an offence the Magistrate is not require to examine thoroughly the merit and demerit of the case and to record a final verdict. At that stage, he is not required to record even reason, as expression of reasons in support of the cognizance may result in causing prejudice to the right of the parties and may also in due course result in prejudicing the trial. However, the order of the Magistrate must reflect that he has applied his mind to the fact of the case. The law does not require the Magistrate to record reasons for taking cognizance of an offence. In this case the cognizance / summoning order passed on 18.1.2020 on printed proforma is not a judicial order without recording any reason in support of satisfaction for taking cognizance. In Ankit Vs. State of U.P. & Another J & C 2010 CL 432 held that order impugned being on printed proforma is clearly without applicantion of judicial mind and hence, is liable to be quashed on this ground alone.
In view of the above, the conduct of Judicial Officer concerned in passing orders on printed proforma by filling up the blanks without application of judicial mind is objectionable and deserves to be deprecated. The summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter and order must reflect that the Magistrate had applied his mind to the facts as well as law applicable thereto.
Accordingly, the impugned summoning order dated 18.1.2020 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Chhata, District Mathura is hereby set aside. The Magistrate concerned is hereby directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.
Accordingly, this application under section 482 Cr.P.C. is finally disposed off.
Order Date :- 19.1.2021
Vibha Singh
