Allahabad High Court
Satypal And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 15 September, 2023
Bench: Shree Prakash Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:59300
Court No. - 28
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8966 of 2023
Applicant :- Satypal And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Singh,Balak Ram
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.
1. Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Sushil Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. Instant application has been filed with following reliefs:-
(i) to quash the impugned order dated 07.09.2022 passed by Civil Judge Junior Division FTC Hardoi Case crime No.345/2021, U/S 323, 506 Police Staion kachona, District Hardoi, state of up Vs. Satypal & others.
(ii) to pass any other order or direct of which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper looking to the facts and circumstances of the case.
(iii) to allow the petition with cost.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submit that the applicants are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the instant matter. He next submits that the Investigating Officer without collecting the material evidence, has filed the chargesheet, though, they were never involved in committing offence. He added that learned trial court ignoring the settled proposition of law has passed the summoning order, while filling in the blanks and thus, the summoning order itself vitiates in the eyes of law.
4. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on judgment reported in Pankaj Jaiswal Versus State of U.P. and another, Application under section 482 Cr.P.C. bearing No. 11334 of 2021, decided on 09-08-2021. Relevant portion of the Judgment in the case of Pankaj Jaiswal(Supra) is extracted hereinunder :-
"In view of the above, this Court finds and observes that the conduct of the judicial officers concerned in passing orders on printed proforma by filling up the blanks without application of judicial mind is objectionable and deserves to be deprecated. The summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter and the order must reflect that Magistrate had applied his mind to the facts as well as law applicable thereto, whereas the impugned summoning order was passed in mechanical manner without application of judicial mind and without satisfying himself as to which offence were prima-facie being made out against the applicants on the basis of the allegations made by the complainant. the impugned cognizance order passed by the learned Magistrate is against the settled judicial norms."
5. Referring the aforesaid he submits that the case of the present applicant is squarely covered with the ratio of judgment above-said. Therefore, submission is that the summoning order dated 07.09.2022 maybe set aside.
6. Learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the submission aforesaid, but he could not dispute the legal issue raised by the counsel for the applicants.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires from the summoning order that there are fill in the blanks, which is impermissible and thus, summoning order dated 07.09.2022 is set aside.
8. Matter is remitted back to the trial court concerned to pass a fresh order, within period of thirty days, in accordance with the law.
9. This order shall be communicated to the trial court concerned by the office forthwith.
10. The instant application is allowed accordingly.
Order Date :- 15.9.2023/Mayank
