Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 8 April, 2025
2025:UHC:2638
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application No. 201 of 2017
8th April, 2025
Arvind Sharma --Applicant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand and Another --Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal, learned counsel for the applicant.
Mr. J.S. Virk, learned DAG along with Mr. Rakesh Joshi, learned
Brief Holder for the State.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGM EN T: ( pe r Alok M a h r a J. )
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and
learned Deputy Advocate General for the State.
2. In the present C482 application, the present
applicant is challenging the order dated 26.09.2015,
passed by Judicial Magistrate, Vikas Nagar, District
Dehradun in Criminal Case No. 508 of 2015, State vs.
Arvind Sharma and others as well as the entire
proceedings wherein the present applicant is facing the
trial for the offences punishable under Sections 457, 427,
323, 504, 506, 448, 511 and 120B of IPC.
3. Brief facts of the case are that an FIR was
lodged by respondent no. 2 on 15.05.2015, registered as
2025:UHC:2638
FIR No. 65 of 2015 by implicating the applicant with the
allegation that the applicant alongwith two other were
trying to raise illegal construction on the rented shop of
respondent no.2. On this FIR, the investigation was
commenced and thereafter charge sheet was filed.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that
the Trial Court took cognizance on the charge sheet in a
printed proforma by filling up the blanks which itself
reveals that the learned Trial Court while taking
cognizance has not applied its judicial mind.
5. I perused the summoning order and on perusal
of the same it reveals that the summoning order has
been passed in a printed proforma by filing up the blanks
which reveals that the Trial Court has not applied its
judicial mind and in a very cursory manner the Trial
Court took cognizance. In reference to this learned
counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the judgment
of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Sunil
Bharti Mittal vs. Central Bureau of Investigation , AIR
2015 Supreme Court 923, wherein the Hon'ble Apex
Court has held that while taking cognizance on the
charge sheet the Magistrate should apply its judicial
mind after examining entire materials including case
diary.
2025:UHC:2638
6. In support of the argument that the
summoning order was issued in printed proforma by
filling up the blanks learned counsel for the applicant
placed reliance in one of the judgment rendered by the
Allahabad High Court in the case of Vishnu Kumar Gupta
& anr. Vs. State of U.P. and anr., 2020 SCC OnLine 1363
and particularly he referred paras 17, 18 and 19 which
are being reproduced herein below:
"17. In the case of Harishchandra Prasad Mani
and others (supra), it was held in para 12 that it is
well settled by a series of decisions of this Court
that cognizance cannot be taken unless there is at
least some material indicating the guilt of the
accused vide R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab AIR
1960 SC 866: (1960) 3 SCR 388: 1960 Cri LJ
1239, State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp
(1) SCC 335: 1992 SCC (Cri) 426, Janata Dal v.
H.S. Chowdhary (1992) 4 SCC 305: 1993 SCC (Cri)
36, Raghubir Saran (Dr.) v. State of Bihar AIR
1964 SC 1:(1964) 2 SCR 336:(1964) 1 CRi LJ 1,
State of Karnataka v. M Devendrappa (2002) 3
SCC 89: 2002 SCC (Cri) 539 and Zandu
Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful
Haque (2005) 1 SCC 122: 2005 SCC (Cri) 283.
18. This type of order has already been held
unsustainable by this Court in the case of Ankit
(supra) relying on in a number of decisions of the
Apex Court. The relevant portion of the said
decision, is extracted below:"Although as held by
this Court in the case of Megh Nath Guptas & Anr
V State of U.P. And Anr, 2008 (62) ACC 826, in
which reference has been made to the cases of
Deputy Chief Controller Import and Export Vs
Roshan Lal Agarwal, 2003 (4^) ACC 686 (SC), UP
Pollution Control Board Vs Mohan Meakins, 2000
(2) JIC 159 (SC): AIR 2000 SC 1456 and Kanti
Bhadra Vs State of West Bengal, 2000 (1) JIC 751
(SC): 2000 (40) ACC 441 (SC), the Magistrate is not
required to pass detailed reasoned order at the
time of taking cognizance on the charge sheet, but
it does not mean that order of taking cognizance
can be passed by filling up the blanks on printed
2025:UHC:2638
proforma. At the time of passing any judicial order
including the order taking cognizance on the
charge sheet, the Court is required to apply
judicial mind and even the order of taking
cognizance cannot be passed in mechanical
manner. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to
be quashed and the matter has to be sent back to
the Court below for passing fresh order on the
charge sheet after applying judicial
mind."(Emphasis supplied)
19. In view of the above, 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."
7. I have gone through with both the orders and
admittedly in the present case the summoning order have
been passed in the printed proforma which itself reveals
that the Trial Court without applying judicial mind took
cognizance and summoned the present applicant. The
Trial Court should keep in mind that the summoning of a
person in a criminal case is a serious matter and the
order must reflect that the Magistrate applied its judicial
mind which is not reflected from the order
8. Learned Deputy Advocate General for the State
fairly submits that while taking cognizance in criminal
matter, the Magistrate should apply its judicial mind and
in the present case the Magistrate while taking
cognizance on the charge sheet has not applied its
judicial mind. He also submits that the matter may be
2025:UHC:2638
remanded back to the Trial Court to decide afresh within
stipulated period.
9. After hearing arguments of the learned counsel
for the parties, and further in the light of the judgments
as relied by the learned counsel for the applicant, it is
explicitly clear that summoning order passed by the Trial
Court is cryptic. The Trial Court failed to exercise the
jurisdiction vested to it.
10. Accordingly, C482 application succeeds and is
allowed. The cognizance/ summoning order is hereby
quashed qua the applicant. The Trial Court is directed to
exercise discretionary power and decide afresh while
taking cognizance on the charge sheet after taking into
consideration the entire materials and pass appropriate
order in accordance with law within three weeks from the
date of presentation of certified copy of this order.
( ALOK M AH RA, J.)
Dat ed: 08.04.2025
BS
BALWANT DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH
COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=fbbd191c8bdb8b16e8ca7937deaf72a17c02fe2eacbf
28cdf4ba7ce8640c5820, postalCode=263001,
st=UTTARAKHAND,
SINGH serialNumber=04E141DF4614F9A4D5F48346EB553DE5185F4
18755DC00A7A13C14A680C3FA90, cn=BALWANT SINGH
Date: 2025.04.08 17:29:10 +05'30'
