Satyendra Kumar Sharma And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another
2024 Latest Caselaw 17243 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Satyendra Kumar Sharma And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 15 May, 2024

Author: Deepak Verma

Bench: Deepak Verma

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:87615
 
Court No. - 75
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 15126 of 2024
 

 
Applicant :- Satyendra Kumar Sharma And Another
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Suresh Dhar Dwivedi
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.
 

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant to quash the impugned charge sheet No.515 of 2021 dated 29.11.2021 against the applicant no.1 and charge-sheet no.515-A/2021 dated 04.04.2022 against the applicant no.2, cognizance order dated 19.01.2024 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahjahanpur in Criminal Case No.29385 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime No.568 of 2020 (State vs. Satyendra Sharma and others), under Sections 406, 506 IPC, Police Station- Kotwali, District- Shahjahanpur, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahjahanpur.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that impugned cognizance order has been passed on a printed proforma by filling the blanks and it has been passed without application of judicial mind and as such, it is not sustainable in the eye of law. Learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Ankit Vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in 2009(9) ADJ page 778.

4. On the basis of aforesaid judgment, it has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that summoning of accused in criminal case is a serious matter and the order impugned reflects that the Magistrate had not applied its judicial mind, as in the present case the impugned cognizance/summoning order has been passed on printed proforma, which clearly indicates that the same has been passed without applying judicial mind and the learned Magistrate only put its signature at the bottom of order.

5. On the other hand, learned AGA has submitted that summoning order has been passed by the learned Magistrate after considering the material which are available on record, but he could not dispute the fact that the order taking cognizance has been passed on the printed proforma.

6. The present case is finally decided at the admission stage itself without issuing notice to the opposite party no.2.

7. From bare perusal of impugned cognizance order, it is apparent that it has been passed on a printed proforma by filling the blanks and it appears that the blanks were filled up by some staff of the concerned Magistrate and the concerned Magistrate has only put its initial at the bottom of summoning order.

8. The law on this point is well settled that prior to taking cognizance and issuing summons to the accused-persons, the concerned Magistrate has to apply its judicial mind and that the cognizance/summoning order cannot be passed in a mechanical manner.

9. In view of above, since impugned cognizance/summoning order has been passed on a printed proforma by filling the blanks without application of judicial mind and as such, it is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

10. Accordingly the application under section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. The impugned cognizance/summoning order dated 19.01.2024 is hereby quashed.

11. The concerned Magistrate is directed to pass a fresh order regarding cognizance as well as summoning of the applicants in the aforesaid case in accordance with law, after applying its judicial mind within a period of one month from the date of production of a copy of this order.

Order Date :- 15.5.2024

SKD