Mukesh @ Mukesh Kumar vs State Of U.P. And Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 8494 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 49
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5540 of 2021
 

 
Applicant :- Mukesh @ Mukesh Kumar
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Ramesh Chandra Kushwaha,Syed Mohammad Abbas Abdy
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.

1. Heard Sri Syed Mohammad Abbas Abdy, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vikas Goswami, learned AGA for the State.

2. Sri Abdi submits that summoning order dated 6.8.2020 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Bulandshahr in Case Crime No. 195 of 2020 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 325, 307, 504, 427 IPC and Section 3(1) 10 & 3(2) 5 A of SC/ST Act, police station - Kotwali Dehat, District Bulandshahr is on a printed proforma and reveals that non-application of mind while issuing summoning order. He place 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 summoning order.

3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Bulandshahr 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 case of Ankit Vs. State of UP and another, 2009 (9) ADJ 778.

4. Certified copy of the impugned summoning order is annexed as Annexure-10 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 Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Bulandshahr 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 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.

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 6.8.2020 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 :- 23.7.2021

S.K.S.