Allahabad High Court
Manjeet vs State Of U.P. And Another on 23 August, 2023
Bench: Anish Kumar Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:169718
Court No. - 92
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19506 of 2023
Applicant :- Manjeet
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Mrityunjay Dwivedi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J.
1. Heard Shri Mrityunjay Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Pankaj Srivastava, learned AGA for the State.
2. The instant application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed invoking therein the prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceeding of Case Crime No.0335 of 2022, under Section 323, 452, 325, 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station Naujheel, District Mathura pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate-4, Mathura as well as charge-sheet.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the instant case, the charge sheet was submitted in a mechanical manner without verifying the F.I.R, upon which the learned Magistrate has also taken cognizance against the applicant without application of mind and the cognizance/summoning order has been passed on a printed proforma without there being any application of mind by the learned Judicial Magistrate to the facts and circumstances of the case.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon a judgment of this Court in Ankit Vs. State of U.P. & another, 2009 (9) ADJ 778 and also the judgment dated 3.4.2023 passed by this Court in Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No.3069 of 2023 (Santosh Kumar Bajpai Vs. State of U.P. and another).
5. In Ankit Vs. State of U.P. (supra), this Court has observed as under:-
"10. Below aforesaid sentence, the seal of the Court containing name of Sri Talevar Singh, the then Judicial Magistrate-III, has been affixed and the learned Magistrate has put his short signature (initial) over his name. The manner in which the impugned order has been prepared shows that the learned Magistrate did not at all apply his judicial mind at the time of passing this order and after the blanks were filled up by some employee of the Court, he has put his initial on the seal of the Court. This method of passing judicial order is wholly illegal. If for the shake of argument, it is assumed that the blanks on the printed proforma were filled up in the handwriting of learned Magistrate, even then the impugned order would be illegal and invalid, because order of taking cognizance or any other judicial order cannot be passed by filling up blanks on the printed proforma. Although as held by this Court in the case of Megh Nath Gupta v. State of U.P., [2008 (62) ACC 826.] in which reference has been made to the cases of Deputy Chief Controller Import and Export v. Roshan Lal Agrawal, [2003 (46) ACC 686 (SC).] U.P. Pollution Control Board v. Mohan Meakins, [(2000) 3 SCC 745 : AIR 2000 SC 1456.] and Kanti Bhadra v. State of West Bengal, [2000 (40) ACC 441 (SC).] the Magistrate is not required to pass detailed reasoned order at the time of taking cognizance on the charge-sheet, but it does not mean that order of taking cognizance can be passed by filling up the blanks on printed proforma. At the time of passing any judicial order including the order taking cognizance on the charge-sheet, the Court is required to apply judicial mind and even the order of taking cognizance cannot be passed in mechanical manner. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and the matter has to be sent back to the Court below for passing fresh order on the charge-sheet after applying judicial mind."
6. The Apex Court in the case of Darshan Singh Ram Kishan Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in MANU/SC/0089/1971: (1971)2 SCC 654 has observed as under:-
"8. As provided by Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a Magistrate may take cognizance of an offence either, (a) upon receiving a complaint, or (b) upon a police report, or (c) upon information received from a person other than a police officer or even upon his own information or suspicion that such an offence has been committed. As has often been held, taking cognizance does not involve any formal action or indeed action of any kind but occurs as soon as a Magistrate applies his mind to the suspected commission of an offence. Cognizance, therefore, takes place at a point when a Magistrate first takes judicial notice of an offence. This is the position whether the Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence on a complaint, or on a police report, or upon information of a person other than a police officer. Therefore, when a Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence upon a police report, prima facie he does so of the offence or offences disclosed in such report."
7. In view thereof and from perusal of the cognizance/summoning order dated 27.03.2023, it is apparent that the summoning order was passed on a printed proforma without there being application of judicial mind by the learned Magistrate.
8. Relying upon the aforesaid judgement and submissions, the cognizance order dated 27.03.2023 passed by the Judicial Magistrate-4, Mathura in Case Crime No.0335 of 2022, under Sections 323, 452, 325, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Naujheel, District Mathura is hereby quashed. Learned Judicial Magistrate is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.
9. With the aforesaid observation, the instant application is partly allowed.
Order Date :- 23.8.2023
SFH
