Allahabad High Court
Sudesh Bhadauria vs State Of U.P. And Anr. on 7 February, 2020
Author: Manju Rani Chauhan
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?A.F.R. Court No. - 76 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5525 of 2020 Applicant :- Sudesh Bhadauria Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashutosh Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Sri Ashutosh Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Amit Singh Chauhan, learned A.G.A. for the State.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the impugned summoning order dated 20.02.2019 as well as subsequent orders and the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.3073 of 2018 (Shriram Transport Vs. Sudesh), Police Station Navabad, District Jhansi, pending in the court of A.C.J.M.-II, Jhansi.
It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the Judicial Magistrate did not apply his judicial mind at the time of passing the summoning order against the applicant as the impugned summoning order has been passed on a printed proforma, which is not permissible under law. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment in the case of Ankit Vs. State of U.P. & another reported in 2009 (9) ADJ 778.
Certified copy of the impugned summoning order is annexed as Annexure 1 to the affidavit which goes to show that the order has been passed on a printed proforma by filling up the blanks. Blanks on the printed proforma appear to have been filled by the court employee. Learned Magistrate has simply put his initial over his name without applying his judicial mind before passing the said order.
He has further submitted that the learned Magistrate has simply signed the summoning order which in fact is the reproduction of a rubber stamp. The entire language of the order consists of a rubber stamp which was already typed with blank spaces at certain places. Certain places in the impugned summoning order are left blank which shows that there was total non-application of mind while passing the summoning order.
Learned counsel for the applicant has confined his argument only to the extent that the impugned summoning order is a printed proforma order, which has been passed without applying its judicial mind, and the same is illegal and liable to be quashed.
On the other hand, learned A.G.A. submits that the impugned summoning order, which has been prepared and passed by filling up the blanks on the printed proforma, is wholly illegal and invalid.
The argument advanced on behalf of applicant has substance. The use of blanks printed proforma in passing the judicial order is not proper and the order of summoning the applicant has been passed without application of judicial mind, which is substantiated by the fact that even the date has not been mentioned filling up the blanks which has been left in the rubber stamp for mentioning the date of appearance.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, stated above, the impugned summoning order dated 20.02.2019 is hereby quashed. Learned court below is directed to pass a fresh order on the complaint after applying his judicial mind.
The application stands allowed.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the court concerned for compliance.
Register General of this Court is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned court taking into consideration the fact that all the Presiding Officer shall restrain themselves from using such printed proforma in judicial work. The blank printed proformas available in the court below will be seized.
Order Date :- 7.2.2020 Anand Sri./-