Sheela Devi And 9 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 3648 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 78
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5139 of 2021
 

 
Applicant :- Sheela Devi And 9 Others
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Vinod Kumar Shukla
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

Perused the record.

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash entire proceedings of Case No. 556 of 2020 (State vs. Dauli Singh and others) as well as summoning order dated 27.09.2020 and N.B.W. order dated 08.01.2021 arising out of Charge Sheet No. 165 of 2020 dated 24.04.2020 in Case Crime No. 12 of 2020 under Section 147, 447, 353, 504, 336 I.P.C. P.S. Dibai, District Bulandshahr.

By means of this application, applicant has prayed for quashing of the order dated 3.12.2020 passed by the S.D.M., Sadar, Azamgarh in case No. 57 of 2020, under Section 110 Cr.P.C. whereby a show cause notice was issued to the applicant to the effect that why he may not be required to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and two sureties each in the like amount for maintaining peace and good conduct for a period of one year.

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that impugned notice does not fulfill the requirements of mandatory provisions of Section 111 Cr.P.C., thus the notice is null and void and the proceedings before the learned Magistrate are a nullity and further the impugned notice is on a printed proforma in which gaps are filled and the substances of information received as set forth is wholly incomplete, vague and ambiguous.

A person is not required to give reply to the general and vague allegations, which are printed on a cyclo style sheet. The object of initiating proceedings can be met only if notice is given with the substance of the information received by the Magistrate.

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application, but he has fairly conceded that the impugned notice suffers from vagueness and it is on a printed proforma wherein only by filling in the gaps the reason for issuing notice has been communicated to the applicant.

Perusal of the impugned notice indicates that it was given to the applicant on a cyclo-style proforma in which the gaps have been filled and the same also lacks the substance of the allegations received against the applicant.

In Shiv Kant Tripathi Versus State of U.P. & Anr. 2005(3) JIC 477 (All), this Court by allowing the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has quashed the notice served on printed proforma, held such notice null and void and the proceedings initiated on its basis as not maintainable.

In view of the law and the reasons, I am of the opinion that the impugned notice, which has been issued mechanically in printed proforma without spelling out the substance of facts to be met by the applicant, being wholly illegal and void, is liable to be quashed.

In view of above, the application is allowed. The notice dated 3.12.2020 is hereby set aside with liberty to the Magistrate to initiate proceedings afresh in accordance with law.

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the concerned Judicial Magistrate did not apply his judicial mind at the time of passing the cognizance order dated 27.09.2020 as the impugned cognizance order has been passed on a printed proforma, only the blanks have been filled up, which is not permissible under the law. A certified copy of the impugned cognizance order is annexed as Annexure-4 to the affidavit.

Elaborating his submissions, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that in the printed proforma case number, names of accused, police station, case crime number, sections, the date of the order and date of summons have been filled by hand. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that the court below while summoning the applicants has materially erred and did not follow the dictum of law as propounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various cases that summoning in criminal case is a serious matter and the court below without dwelling the material and visualizing the case on the touchstone of probability should not summon accused persons to face the trial.

Learned counsel for the applicants has confined his argument only to the extent that the impugned cognizance order is a proforma based order and the same has been passed without applying his judicial mind, therefore, is illegal and liable to be quashed.

On the other hand, learned AGA has opposed the present application made by learned counsel for the applicants but could not dispute the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants.

The arguments advanced on behalf of the applicants have substance. The use of proforma in passing the judicial order is not proper and the order of summoning the applicants has been passed without application of mind.

In the case of Fakhruddin Ahmad Vs. State of Uttranchal and another, (2008) 17 SCC 157, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that being an expression of indefinite import, it is neither practicable nor desirable to precisely define as to what is meant by "taking cognizance". Nevertheless, it is well settled that before a Magistrate can be said to have taken cognizance of an offence, it is imperative that he must have taken notice of the accusations and applied his mind to the allegations made in the complaint or in the police report or the information received from a source other than a police report, as the case may be, and the material filed therewith. It needs title emphasis that it is only when the Magistrate applies his mind and is satisfied that the allegations, if proved, would constitute an offence and decides to initiate proceedings against the alleged offender, that it can be positively stated that he has taken cognizance of the offence. Cognizance is in regard to the offence and not the offender.

This Court in the case of Ankit Vs. State of U.P. and another, [2009 (9) ADJ 778], while relying upon a number of decisions of the Apex Court has held as under:

"Although as held by this Court in the case of Megh Nath Guptas & Anr V State of U.P. And Anr, 2008 (62) ACC 826, in which reference has been made to the cases of Deputy Chief Controller Import and Export Vs Roshan Lal Agarwal, 2003 (4) ACC 686 (SC), UP Pollution Control Board Vs Mohan Meakins, 2000 (2) JIC 159 (SC): AIR 2000 SC 1456 and Kanti Bhadra Vs State of West Bengal, 2000 (1) JIC 751 (SC): 2000 (40) ACC 441 (SC), the Magistrate is not required to pass detailed reasoned order at the time of taking cognizance on the charge sheet, but it does not mean that order of taking cognizance can be passed by filling up the blanks on printed proforma. At the time of passing any judicial order including the order taking cognizance on the charge sheet, the Court is required to apply judicial mind and even the order of taking cognizance cannot be passed in mechanical manner. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and the matter has to be sent back to the Court below for passing fresh order on the charge sheet after applying judicial mind."(Emphasis supplied)

The summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter and the order must reflect that Magistrate had applied his mind to the facts as well as law applicable thereto.

In light of the judgments referred to above, it is explicitly clear that the order dated 27.09.2020 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Anoopshahr does not stand the test of the law laid down by the Apex Court. Accordingly, the cognizance order dated 27.09.2020 is hereby quashed. The court concerned is directed to pass a fresh speaking order in accordance with law preferably within a period of one month from today.

Office may communicate this order to the concerned court within one week.

With the above direction, the application stands allowed.

Order Date :- 16.3.2021

SY