Allahabad High Court
Shiv Shankar @ Nanhaku And 7 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 10 November, 2022
Bench: Syed Aftab Rizvi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 88
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 24246 of 2022
Applicant :- Shiv Shankar @ Nanhaku And 7 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Murli Dhar Yadav,Sapan Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant for quashing the charge-sheet dated 12.12.2013 and cognizance/summoning order dated 3.6.2020 passed by A.C.J.M.-II, Jaunpur as well as entire proceeding of Case No. 504 of 2020 (State Vs. Shiv Shankar and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 312 of 2013, under Sections 498A, 323 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Shikrara, District Jaunpur.
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.
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.
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.
The present case is finally decided at the admission stage itself without issuing notice to the opposite party no.2.
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.
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.
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.
Accordingly the application under section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. The impugned cognizance/summoning order dated 21.12.2019 is hereby quashed.
The concerned Magistrate is directed to pass a fresh order regarding cognizance as well as summoning of the applicant 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 :- 10.11.2022
Masarrat
