Proper application of judicial mind is essential at the stage of summoning in criminal cases, and orders passed in a standardized format without such application are objectionable.

1. By this application preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (For short “CrPC”), the petitioners seek quashing of the order dated 29.02.2016 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patna in Patliputra P.S. Case No. 309 of 2015 whereby cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 498- A/34 of the Indian Penal Code along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act has been taken against the petitioners.

2. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order of cognizance of the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code as well as Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioners dated 29.02.2016 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patna in Patliputra P.S. Case No. 309 of 2015 has been passed by filling up the blanks in the typed format. He has contended that the order has been passed mechanically without due application of mind.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has contended that though the impugned order has been passed on the printed format by filling gaps, there are sufficient materials against the petitioners for taking cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 498-A, 34 of the Indian Penal Code along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. He has contended that an elaborate order is not required to be passed to take cognizance of the offence.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order dated 29.02.2016.

5. Without going into the merits of the allegation, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order cannot be sustained as it has been passed without application of judicial mind in a mechanical manner. The learned Judicial Magistrate has simply filled up the blanks in the typed format.

6. True it is that an elaborate order is not required to be passed to take cognizance and to issue summons, but the order must at least disclose that there has been an application of judicial mind. The practice of filling up of blanks in readily typed format for passing judicial orders is highly objectionable.

7. The need for proper application of mind by the courts at the stage of summoning has been highlighted by the Supreme Court in Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and Ors. [(1998) 5 SCC 749] as under :-

“28. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. The Magistrate has to carefully scrutinize the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused.”

8. It would be trite to remark that taking of cognizance and summoning of an accused in a criminal case has serious consequence on the liberty of the accused, as pursuant to such order, he is made to take bail and face trial for a criminal offence. An order of cognizance passed in a standardized format by filling up the perfunctory details buttress an ex facie lack of application of mind.

9. Keeping in mind the discussions made hereinabove and the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Anr. (S