Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.25 seconds)The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Aquil Ahmad And Ors. vs The State Of U.P Thru Principal Secy., ... on 8 September, 2015
Even otherwise, in the case of Aquil Ahmad (supra) this Court has specifically advised the Magistrates to refrain themselves from passing such fill-in-the-gap orders.
Ankit Bharti vs State Of U.P. And Another on 2 March, 2020
"12. This Court in the matter of Ankit Vs State of U.P. And another reported in JIC 2010 (1) page 432 has held that-
U.P. Pollution Control Board vs M/S Mohan Meakins Ltd. And Others on 27 March, 2000
" 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)
Ankit Tiwari And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. Thru Secy. And 3 Others on 29 October, 2014
U;k;ky; eq[; U;kf;d eftLVªsV] yfyriqjA
eq0 ua0 909@19
ljdkj cuke vo/ks'k vkfn
/kkjk & 381 IPC
Fkkuk & rkycsgV
01-03-19 vkt vkjksi i= e; nhxkj dkxtkr iqfyl foHkkx ls izkIr gqvkA
laKku fy;k x;k] vkns'k gqvk fd ntZ jftLVj gksA vfHk;qDr@vfHk;qDrx.k ds
fo:n~/k lEeu tkjh gksA i=koyh fnukad 03&05&19 dks okLrs gkftjh eqfYte is'k gksA
eq[; U;kf;d eftLVªsV
yfyriqjA
(Underline is supplied to show where the space has been left and are filled later-on.)
From a perusal of the above order it is evident that it is a typed proforma where only information of case no, name of accused, section, Police Station, date and next date is to be filled by Magistrate. This very practice has been depreciated by the court in the case of Ankit Vs State of U.P. (supra). Though no detailed order is required to pass at the time of taking cognizance but the short cut adopted by the Magistrate is also not acceptable and therefore, in the present case, cognizance order is passed without any application of mind as the same does not reflect that the Magistrate has applied his mind to materials available and also whether the materials are sufficient to proceed against the applicant/accused.
State Of Haryana And Ors vs Ch. Bhajan Lal And Ors on 21 November, 1990
In the present case, neither the concerned Magistrate has applied mind before taking cognizance of offence and rather passed an order in the form of proforma order, nor on the basis of materials available, even prima facie ingredients of section 381 IPC are disclosed and therefore, in my considered opinion, present case is squarely covered by category (c) of the judgment passed in the case of State of Haryana And Ors vs Ch. Bhajan Lal And Ors (supra), which states that-
Anand Kumar Mohatta vs State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) Department ... on 15 November, 2018
20. In view of the above discussion to secure the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of the process of court below, present is a fit case to exercise the inherent jurisdiction of the court provided under section 482 Cr.P.C to prevent abuse of process of lower court as well as to secure ends of justice. For disposal of the present case para 34 of the judgment passed by Supreme Court in Anand Kumar Mohatta Vs State of NCT of Delhi 2018 SCC on-line 2447 is also very useful and the same is quoted hereinafter.
State Of Karnataka vs L. Muniswamy & Ors on 3 March, 1977
"34. It is necessary here to remember the words of this Court in State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy and others which read as follows: -
Ashu Rawat vs State Of U.P. And Another on 29 September, 2020
11. Accordingly, considering the law laid down by this Court in the case of Ankit (supra), Avdhesh (supra) and Ashu Rawat (supra), it is apparent that the impugned order as has been passed in the present case i.e. by filling in the blanks of a computer typed order is legally not sustainable.