Krishan Pal Singh And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 306 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 91
 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 29015 of 2021
 
Applicant :- Krishan Pal Singh And Another
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Dinesh Kumar Gupta
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi,J. 

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. This criminal misc. application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the accused-applicants to quash the charge sheet no.01 of 2021 dated 13.09.2021, cognizance order dated 28.09.2021 as well as entire proceedings of Special Case No.652 of 2021(State Vs. Om Prakash Singh and another), under sections 504, 506, IPC and section 3(2)(Va), 3(1)(Da) and 3(1)(Dha) of SC/ST Ac, Police Station Khaga, District Fatehpur, arising out of Case Crime No.259 of 2021, pending in the court of Special Judge (SC/ST) Act, Fatehpur.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that impugned cognizance/summoning order has been passed on a printed proforma by filling the blanks and it has been passed without application of judicial mind and as such, it is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Ankit Vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in 2009(9) ADJ page 778.

4. On the basis of aforesaid judgment, it has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that summoning of accused in criminal case is a serious matter and the order impugned reflects that the Magistrate had not applied its judicial mind, as in the present case the impugned cognizance/summoning order has been passed on printed proforma, which clearly indicates that the same has been passed without applying judicial mind and the learned Magistrate only put its signature at the bottom of order.

5. On the other hand, learned AGA has submitted that summoning order has been passed by the learned Magistrate after considering the material which are available on record, but he could not dispute the fact that the order taking cognizance has been passed on the printed proforma.

6. The present case is finally decided at the admission stage itself without issuing notice to the opposite party no.2.

7. From bare perusal of impugned cognizance/summoning order, it is apparent that it has been passed on a printed proforma by filling the blanks and it appears that the blanks were filled up by some staff of the concerned Magistrate and the concerned Magistrate has only put its initial at the bottom of summoning order.

8. The law on this point is well settled that prior to taking cognizance and issuing summons to the accused-persons, the concerned Magistrate has to apply its judicial mind and that the cognizance/summoning order cannot be passed in a mechanical manner.

9. In view of above, since impugned cognizance/summoning order has been passed on a printed proforma by filling the blanks without application of judicial mind and as such, it is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

10. Accordingly the application under section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. The impugned cognizance/summoning order dated 12.06.2019 is hereby quashed.

11. The concerned Magistrate is directed to pass a fresh order regarding cognizance as well as summoning of the applicants in the aforesaid case in accordance with law, after applying its judicial mind within a period of two months from the date of production of a copy of this order.

Order Date :- 1.4.2022

VKG