Allahabad High Court
Trivikram Nath Pandey vs State Of U.P. And Another on 23 May, 2023
Bench: Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:113045
Court No. - 71
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19149 of 2023
Applicant :- Trivikram Nath Pandey
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Raghvendra Pratap
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
1. List revised.
2. Heard Sri Raghvendra Pratap, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri S.B. Maurya, learned State counsel and perused the record.
3. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant Trivikram Nath Pandey with the prayer to allow this application and quash the entire proceeding as well as impugned charge-sheet dated 01.10.2022 & cognizance order dated 03.01.2023 in Criminal Case No. 29 of 2023 (State Vs. Chandra Mani Tripathi and another) arising out of Case Crime No. 119 of 2022, under Sections 419, 420 I.P.C., Police Station Shohratgarh, District Siddharth Nagar pending in the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.) / J.M. / F.T.C.-02, Siddharth Nagar with a further prayer that proceedings of the aforesaid case be stayed against the applicant during the pendency of the present application.
4. 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.46 to the paper book (Annexure No.3). 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 03.01.2023, 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.
5. 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 03.01.2023 is on a printed proforma which have been filled in ink.
6. 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.
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 order dated 03.01.2023 is hereby set aside.
9. The present application is allowed to this extent.
10. 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 :- 23.5.2023
AS Rathore
(Samit Gopal,J.)
