Allahabad High Court
Satish Chandra Sharma vs State Of U.P. And Another on 30 September, 2022
Bench: Narendra Kumar Johari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 47
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 27285 of 2022
Applicant :- Satish Chandra Sharma
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjeev Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Narendra Kumar Johari,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This petition/application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the charge-sheet dated 25.12.2916, relating to Case Crime No.140 of 2016, under Sections 419, 420, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Tundla, District Firozabad, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad. A further prayer is also made to quash the cognizance order dated 27.07.2017 and to stay the further proceedings of Case No.1989 of 2017 (State Vs. Satish Chandra Sharma), under Sections 419, 420, 468, 471 IPC, relating to Case Crime No.140 of 2016, Police Station Tundla, District Firozabad.
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 impugned cognizance order dated 27.07.2017, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad 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 complaint made by complainant Jugendra Singh Yadav, Principal of Deen Bandhu Inter College, Usayani, Tundla, Firozabad on 11.02.2016, a First Information Report was lodged against the applicant/petitioner under Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. vide Crime No.140 of 2016. and after investigation, chargesheet has been submitted on 25.12.2016 and the Magistrate concerned (C.J.M. Firozbad) has passed the cognizance order dated 27.07.2017 upon the police report. It shows that cognizance order has been passed on the printed proforma by filling the date and sections.
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 in the police report/complaint, that constitutes the cognizance. It is apparent on record that summoning order after taking cognizance on 27.07.2017 has been passed by the Magistrate concerned on printed proforma by filling up the gap.
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 27.07.2017 is hereby quashed and matter is remanded back to the court concerned to pass a fresh order upon police report expeditiously in accordance with law.
Let a copy of this order be sent to Session Judge, Firozabad also with a direction to take up the matter in monthly meeting with judicial officers, so that, in future such type of orders on printed proforma may not be passed. The Session Judge, Firozabad will also submit a compliance report to this Court.
With the above direction, the petition is allowed.
Order Date :- 30.9.2022
ML
