Allahabad High Court
Shahbaj Alias Bhau vs State Of Up And 3 Others on 3 May, 2024
Author: Samit Gopal
Bench: Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:79767
Court No. - 87
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11730 of 2024
Applicant :- Shahbaj Alias Bhau
Opposite Party :- State Of Up And 3 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Dwivedi,Vijai Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Satyam Pandey
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
1. List revised.
2. Heard Sri Rajesh Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri A.L. Gupta holding brief of Sri Satyam Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party no.4, Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned State counsel and perused the records.
3. This application under Section 482 has been filed by the applicant-Shahbaj Alias Bhau with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding as well as charge sheet dated 26.11.2021 (State Vs. Shahbaj @ Bhau) as well as cognizance dated 22.3.2024 u/s 376, 363, 328, 506 IPC and 4 POCSO Act, arising out of Case Crime No.54 of 2021, P.S. Maudaha, District Hamirpur in Sessions Case No.545 of 2024 pending before Special Judge, POCSO Act, Hamirpur and further to stay the further proceedings of aforesaid case.
4. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.4 states that he has filed his vakalatnama in the office but the same is not on record.
5. Office is directed to trace out the same and place it on record by the next date and make a note in the order sheet regarding the same.
6. 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 applicants are false and concocted. It is argued that charge sheet in the present matter has been submitted without any cogent evidence. The concerned trial court has passed summoning order on 22.3.2024 which is annexed on page 87 of the affidavit which is on a printed proforma by filling up the name of the applicant and other details which shows that there is total non application of mind. It is argued that no offence is made out against the applicant.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing.
8. 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. The summoning order dated 22.3.2024 passed in the present matter is on a cyclostyled proforma in which the details have been filled with ink.
9. 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."
10. 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 22.3.2024 is hereby set aside.
11. The present application is allowed to this extent.
12. The matter is remanded back to the trial court to pass fresh order in accordance with law within three weeks from today.
(Samit Gopal, J.)
Order Date :- 3.5.2024
Gaurav Kuls
