Allahabad High Court
Chandrabali Mishra And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 17 May, 2023
Bench: Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:107438
Court No. - 71
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 18378 of 2023
Applicant :- Chandrabali Mishra And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Vindeshwari Prasad
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
1. List revised.
2. Heard Sri Vindeshwari Prasad, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Raj Kumar Gupta, learned State counsel and perused the record.
3. The present application under Section 482 has been filed by the applicants - Chandrabali Mishra, Surendra Mishra and Sanjay Mishra with the prayer to stay the entire criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No. 1873/2019, pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.5, Allahabad (State of U.P. Vs. Gagga Bhartiya and others) (including the impugned summoning order dated 05.09.2019 and impugned charge sheet dated 19.07.2019) Crime No. 85 of 2019, under Sections 3, 57, 70 Uttar Pradesh Upkhanij (Parihar) Niyamawali, 1963 and 4, 21 Khan Ewam Khanij (vikas Ka Viniyman) Adhiniyam 1957, P.S. Lalapur, District Prayagraj and with a further prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding of the aforesaid case, during the pendency of the present application.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants argued that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the entire allegations as levelled against the applicants are false and concocted. It is argued that the concerned trial court has passed summoning order on 05.09.2019 which is annexure 6 to the affidavit which is on a printed proforma by filling up the name of the applicants and other details with the 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 05.09.2019 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 05.09.2019 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 :- 17.5.2023
M. ARIF
(Samit Gopal, J.)
