Allahabad High Court
Mohd. Yusuf And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 13 February, 2023
Bench: Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 69
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3572 of 2023
Applicant :- Mohd. Yusuf And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Shailendra Kumar Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
List revised.
Heard Sri Shailendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Siddharth Baghel, learned State counsel and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants- Mohd. Yusuf, Akila and Ausaaf with the prayer to quash the charge-sheet dated 30.06.2022 as well as cognizance order dated 15.09.2022 in Case No. 9686 of 2022, State vs. Yusuf and others, arising out of Case Crime No. 12 of 2022, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 452 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act at P.S. Mahila Thana Kannauj, District Kannauj pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge (JD) / F.T.C.-II, Kannauj and with further prayer to stay the further proceedings of aforesaid case against the applicants.
Learned counsel for the applicants has drawn the attention of the Court to the summoning order, the copy of which is annexed at page no. 38 to the paper book (Annexure No.4). 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 15.09.2022, it is apparent that the same is on a printed proforma in which Section, Police Station and name of accused persons have not been mentioned. 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 15.09.2022 is on a printed proforma with blank spaces of the relevant things 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 15.09.2022 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 :- 13.2.2023
AS Rathore
(Samit Gopal,J.)
