Vinod Kumar @ Vinod Babu Sharma vs State Of U.P. And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 11822 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 71
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13726 of 2023
 

 
Applicant :- Vinod Kumar @ Vinod Babu Sharma
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Bala Nath Mishra,Ram Vishal Mishra,Sachin Mishra
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

List revised.

Heard Sri Bala Nath Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri B.B. Upadhyay, learned State counsel and perused the record.

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant- Vinod Kumar @ Vinod Babu Sharma, with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding impugned order dated 10.03.2023 (N.B.W.) in Criminal Case No. 451 of 2019, (State vs. Vinod Kumar), under Section 429 I.P.C., arising out of Case Crime No. 272 of 2018, at P.S. Chandpa, District Hathras pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sadabad, District Hathras with a further prayer to stay the further proceedings of aforesaid case during pendency of the present application.

Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of the Court to the summoning order, the copy of which is annexed at page no. 51 to the paper book (Annexure No.8). It is argued that the same is on a printed proforma without application of mind. It is argued that from perusal of the order dated 21.06.2019 it is apparent that the same is on a printed proforma in which the Section, Police Station, Case No., name of the accused have been filed by ink along with next date for appearance of the accused whereas all the other contents of the order are previously printed. It is argued that the same clearly demonstrates that there has been total non application of mind by the concerned trial court and the order taking cognizance and summoning the accused is thus bad in the eyes of law.

Learned counsel for the State though opposed the prayer for quashing but could not dispute the fact that the order taking cognizance and summoning the accused dated 21.06.2019 is on a printed proforma which have been filled in ink.

Time and again, it has been held that orders of printed proforma cannot be passed and the said system of passing such orders have been deprecated.

In the case of Amit Jani vs. State of U.P. and others: (2020) 5 ADJ 1, a Division Bench of this Court has held as follows:-

"The passing of orders in printed proforma/cyclostyled formats have been deprecated by various High Courts including this court as they do not reflect application of mind. Reference is made to the following judgments:-

1. 2000 ILR (Kar) 4773, Vijaya Bank Vs. State.

2. 2010(9) ADJ 594, Abdul Rasheed Vs. State of U.P. & another.

3. 2009 (67) ACC 532, Ankit Vs. State of U.P. & another.

4. 2010 (3) ADJ 622, Saurabh Dewana Vs. State of U.P."

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and without going into the merits of the case as of now, the order dated 21.06.2019 is hereby set aside.

The application is allowed to this extent.

The matter is remanded back to the court below to pass fresh order in accordance with law within a period of three weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

Order Date :- 19.4.2023

AS Rathore

(Samit Gopal,J.)