Allahabad High Court
Vinod Kumar Garg And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 19 November, 2020
Author: Salil Kumar Rai
Bench: Salil Kumar Rai
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 64 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16302 of 2020 Applicant :- Vinod Kumar Garg And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Uttar Kumar Goswami Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
Heard the counsel for the applicants and A.G.A. for the State.
The present application under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed praying to quash the entire proceedings in Case No. 430/2018 (State Vs. Ravi & Ors.) arising out of Case No. 21372/2019 (State Vs. Ravi & Ors.) arising out of Case Crime No. 0652 of 2018 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Parikshitgarh, District Meerut pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge (S.D.), Court No. 3, Meerut as well as charge-sheet No. 104/2019 dated 13.5.2019 in which the applicants have been summoned through order dated 16.12.2019. The order dated 16.12.2019 has been annexed as Annexure No. 17 to the application.
It has been argued by the counsel for the applicants that the summoning order dated 16.12.2019 has been passed by the concerned Magistrate, i.e., the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No. 3, District Meerut mechanically and without perusing the relevant materials on record. It has been stated that the court below has summoned the applicants through an order passed on a printed format by filling in the gaps indicating the case number, section, date of the order and date of summon which is illegal and indicates a non-application of mind by the lower court before issuing the summoning order. On the aforesaid basis, the counsel for the applicants has argued that the order dated 16.12.2019 is liable to be set-aside.
Rebutting the arguments of the counsel for the applicants, the A.G.A. has argued that the court below, keeping in view the charge-sheet and the materials submitted along with it, after applying its judicial mind and after finding sufficient materials on record, summoned the applicants to face trial and, therefore, the summoning order dated 16.12.2019 passed by the court below is according to law and does not require interference by this Court in its inherent power.
A perusal of the order dated 16.12.2019 indicates that it has been passed on a printed proforma by merely filling up the blank spaces and without application of judicial mind. This Court in its judgment dated 11.11.2020 passed in Application under Section 482 No. 41617 of 2019 (Vishnu Kumar Gupta & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.) deprecated the conduct of the concerned judicial officers in passing orders on printed proforma by merely filling up the blanks without application of judicial mind because the summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter and the order must reflect that the Magistrate had applied his mind to the facts as well as law applicable thereto. In its aforesaid judgment, this Court while relying on the different judgments of the Supreme Court held that it was well settled that 'before a Magistrate can be said to have taken cognizance of an offence, it is imperative that he must have taken notice of the accusations and applied his mind to the allegations made in the complaint or in the police report or the information received from a source other than a police report, as the case may be, and the material filed therewith. It needs little emphasis that it is only when the Magistrate applies his mind and is satisfied that the allegations, if proved, would constitute an offence and decides to initiate proceedings against the alleged offender, that it can be positively stated that he has taken cognizance of the offence. Cognizance is in regard to the offence and not the offender.' In its judgment dated 11.11.2020, the Court also referred to the observations made in a previous judgment of this Court reported in Ankit Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. 2009 (9) ADJ 778 which is reproduced 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 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) It is evident that the order dated 16.12.2019 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No. 3, District Meerut is on a printed format and only the blanks have been filled up by the court below and the order does not stand the test of law as reproduced above. Consequently, the order dated 16.12.2019 cannot be legally sustained.
Accordingly, the present application is allowed and the order dated 16.12.2019 is, hereby, quashed. The matter is remanded back to the court below to pass fresh orders after due application of mind and in accordance with law and observations made above.
The present order has been passed without issuing notices to the opposite party, i.e., the informant as he has no right to be heard at the pre-cognizance stage.
With the aforesaid directions, the application is allowed.
Order Date :- 19.11.2020 Satyam