Hasan Ammar And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 8496 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 49
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10384 of 2021
 

 
Applicant :- Hasan Ammar And 4 Others
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Kailash Prakash Pathak
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Arif Ikbal
 

 
Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.

1. Heard Sri Kailash Prakash Pathak, learned counsel for applicants and learned AGA for the State.

2. Sri Kailash Prakash Pathak, learned counsel for the applicants submits that cognizance order dated 13.12.2018, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Azamgarh, in Case No. 8661 of 2018, arising out of Case Crime No.529 of 2017, under Sections 147, 148, 336, 308 and 120B IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Azamgarh, is on a printed proforma and reveals non-application of mind while taking cognizance of the offence.

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Azamgarh did not apply his judicial mind at the time of passing the cognizance order against the applicants as the impugned 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.

4. Certified copy of the impugned cognizance order is annexed as Annexure-5 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 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Azamgarh 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 applicants 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 (supra), the impugned cognizance order dated 13.12.2018, 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 :- 23.7.2021

Ravi/-