Allahabad High Court
Smt. Akali Devi And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 26 September, 2023
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:187322 Court No. - 93 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 26416 of 2021 Applicant :- Smt. Akali Devi And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vineet Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A., Adeel Ahmad Khan, Pawan Kumar, Satish Kumar Sharma Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Pawan Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Sri Pushpendra Singh Jadon, learned AGA for the State.
2. Present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 30.09.2021 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Fast Track Court No.-01, Maharajganj in Case No.7304 of 2021 (State vs. Subhash Chand and others), arising out of Case Crime No.12 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
3. Contention of counsel for the applicant is that cognizance is bad as the same was signed by the concerned Civil Judge on printed proforma which shows complete non application of mind on the part of concerned Civil Judge.
4. From perusal of cognizance order dated 30.09.2021, it appears that this order is nothing but signing on printed proforma by the Civil Judge (J.D.), Maharajganj. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgement of Lalankumar Singh vs State of Maharashtra; 2022 SCC Online SC 1383 has observed in para 38 that "the order of issuance of process is not an empty formality. The Magistrate is required to apply his mind as to whether sufficient ground for proceeding exists in the case or not. The formation of such an opinion is required to be stated in the order itself. The order is liable to be set aside if no reasons are given therein while coming to the conclusion that there is a prima facie case against the accused".
5. Similarly, the Apex Court in the case of Sunil Bharti Mittal vs Central Bureau of Investigation; 2010(11) SCC 125 observed in para 53 which is as under;
"53. However, the words "sufficient ground for proceeding" appearing in Section 204 are of immene importance. It is these words which amply suggest that an opinion is to be formed only after due application of mind that there is sufficient basis for proceeding against the said accused and formation of such an opinion is to be stated in the order itself. The order is liable to be set aside if no reason is given therein while coming to the conclusion that there is prima facie case against the accused, though the order need not contain detailed reasons. A fortiori, the order would be bad in law if the reason given turns out to be ex facie incorrect."
6. From the above judgements, it is established position of law that while taking cognizance on charge sheet, the concerned Magistrate should apply his mind to make his opinion whether a prima facie case is made out.
7. In the judgement of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Satya Pal vs State of U.P. and another; 2023 (4) ADJ 345 (LB), it has been held that signing on printed proforma has no cognizance at all as the same is without application of mind and quashed the cognizance order. The relevant paragraph no. 21 of the Judgement is quoted as under:
"21. 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, whereas the impugned summoning order was passed in mechanical manner without application of judicial mind."
8. In view of above legal position, this Court is of the view that merely signing and filling the date and case crime no. in printed proforma is absolutely non-application of mind because the cognizance order must reflect the prima facie opinion of the learned Magistrate.
9. As in the present case, impugned cognizance order is nothing but signing the printed proforma which cannot be said to be application of mind.
10. Therefore, considering the aforesaid legal position, the cognizance order dated 30.09.2021 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Fast Track Court No.-01, Maharajganj is quashed. Learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Fast Track Court No.1, Maharajganj is directed to pass fresh order regarding cognizance on the charge sheet in question within a period of one month from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order, in accordance with law.
11. With the aforesaid direction, the application stands allowed.
Order Date :- 26.9.2023/A.Kr.