Adarsh Dwivedi vs State Of U.P. And Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 8541 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 49
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12606 of 2021
 

 
Applicant :- Adarsh Dwivedi
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar
 

 
Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.

1. Heard Sri Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for applicant and Sri Nagendra Srivastava, learned AGA for the State.

2. Sri Sri Ajay Kumar submits that cognizance order dated 01.09.2020, passed by learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 3, Kanpur Nagar, in Case Crime No. 917 of 2019 under Sections 3/4 of Prevention of Damage to Property Act, 1984 is on a printed proforma and reveals 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 Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 3, Kanpur Nagar did not apply his judicial mind at the time of passing the cognizance order against the applicant 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-3 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 Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 3, Kanpur 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 cognizance order dated 01.09.2020, 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

Vikram/-