Allahabad High Court
Mahaveer vs State Of U.P. And Another on 3 May, 2023
Bench: Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:98621
Court No. - 71
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16316 of 2023
Applicant :- Mahaveer
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Umair Mahmood
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
1. List revised.
2. Heard Sri Umair Mahmood, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ankit Srivastava, learned State counsel and perused the record.
3. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant - Mahaveer with the prayer to allow this application to quash the entire proceedings of the Case Crime No. 109 of 2020 Police station Mandawali, District Bijnor Under Section 51 of Wild Life (Protection) Act 1972 and 34 IPC (State Vs. Ishtekharand and Others) in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bijnor as well as quash Cognizance order dated 27.08.2020 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bijnor in Case crime no.109 of 2020 (State Vs. Ishtekharand and Others) as well as quash the charge sheet no.113 of 2020 dated 11.08.2020 (State Vs. Ishtekharand and Others) and with a further prayer to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid case, during the pendency of the present application.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the entire allegations as levelled against the applicant are false and concocted. It is argued that the concerned trial court has passed summoning order on 27.08.2020 which is annexure S.A.-1 to the supplementary affidavit dated 27.04.2023 which is on a printed proforma by filling up the name of the applicant and other details with ink which shows total non application of mind. It is argued that no offence is made out against the applicant.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for quashing but could not dispute that the summoning order has been passed on a printed proforma.
6. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that it has been held that order of printed proforma cannot be passed and the said system of passing such orders have been deprecated. The summoning order dated 27.08.2020 passed in the present matter is on a cyclostyled proforma in which the details have been filled with ink.
7. 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."
8. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and without going into the merits of the case as of now, the summoning order dated 27.08.2020 is hereby set aside.
9. The present application is allowed to this extent.
10. The matter is remanded back to the court concerned to pass fresh order in accordance with law within three weeks from today.
Order Date :- 3.5.2023
Vipasha
(Samit Gopal,J.)
