Allahabad High Court
Kusumlata Tripathi And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 20 May, 2022
Bench: Narendra Kumar Johari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 52
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6383 of 2022
Applicant :- Kusumlata Tripathi And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Vineet Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Narendra Kumar Johari,J.
Learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA are present.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the impugned order dated 04.01.2022 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Fast Track Court-01, Maharajganj in Case No. 30 of 2022 (State Vs. Ravi Tripathi and Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 0039 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 406 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station Parsa Malik, District Maharajganj. A further has also been made to quash the entire proceedings of Case No. 30 of 2022, arising out of Case Crime No. 0039 of 2021 including the impugned charge sheet dated 13.09.2021.
Learned counsel for the applicants has based his argument on the ground that according to law learned Magistrate has not applied his judicial mind for taking cognizance of offence, which is contrary to law hence order dated 04.01.2022 is liable to be quashed.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the aforesaid prayer. However, he did not dispute that the impugned order is on printed proforma.
On the basis of First Information Report lodged by Sunita Tripathi, Police Station Parsa Malik, District Maharajganj, a Criminal Case Crime No. 0039 of 2021, under Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 406 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act has been filed. After investigation, charge sheet has been submitted by the I.O. on 13.09.2021 and the Magistrate concerned (Civil Judge, Junior Division, Fast Track Court-01, Maharajganj) has passed the cognizance order dated 04.01.2022 upon the police report. The certified copy of the order has been filed as annexure 6 with this petition, which shows that cognizance order has been passed on the printed proforma by filling the case crime number, case number, sections, police station, parties name as well as dates.
The word cognizance is used to indicate the point of time when the Magistrate or Judge, first takes judicial notice of an offence. It is the application of judicial mind to the averments mentioned in the police report/complaint, that constitutes the cognizance. It is apparent on record that summoning order after taking cognizance has been passed by the Magistrate concerned on printed proforma by filling up the gap. Even, the Magistrate has not filled the name of accused persons against whom the police report has been submitted.
Learned counsel for the applicants placed reliance on the case laws Basaruddin and others vs. State of U.P. and others 2011 (1) GIC 335 (ALLD.) (LB) in which the court has held that by filling the typed proforma, the accused has been summoned by the court in mechanical way. It is required by law that there must be application of judicial mind and Magistrate has to satisfy himself regarding prima facie case upon which cognizance can be taken and accused can be summoned. Apparently, the summoning order passed by the learned Magistrate suffers from non-application of mind while taking cognizance of the offence.
Learned counsel for the applicants has also placed reliance on the judgment passed in Kavi Ahmad vs. State of U.P. and others Criminal Revision No. 3209 of 010 and Abdul Rasheed and others vs. State of U.P. and others 2010 (3) GIC 761 (ALLD.) that whenever, any police report/complaint is filed before Magistrate, it is mandatory for Magistrate to apply his mind to the fact stated in the report/complaint for taking cognizance and the Magistrate may summon the accused if he finds that prima facie there is sufficient material on record to proceed with the matter.
It has been held that in the case of Arvind Pandey and others vs. State of U.P. and others Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 15372 of 2019 by this Court that judicial orders cannot be allowed to be passed in a mechanical manner either by filling in blank on a printed proforma or by affixing a ready made seal etc. of the order on a plain paper. Such tendency must be deprecated and cannot be allowed to perpetuate. This reflects not only lack of application of mind to the facts of the case but is also against the settled judicial norms.
In view of the above, the summoning order dated 04.01.2022 is hereby quashed and matter is remanded back to the court concerned to pass a fresh order upon police report dated 13.09.2021, expeditiously in accordance with law.
At this stage, the petition is allowed.
The Sessions Judge, Maharajganj is directed to ensure that such type of order on printed proforma should not be passed in future.
Registry is directed to communicate the order to Sessions Judge, Maharajganj.
Order Date :- 20.5.2022
SK Srivastava
