Point of Law: 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.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Anshul Kumar Singhal, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Pankaj Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the charge sheet dated 12.10.2018 and summoning order dated 22.12.2018 as well as the entire proceedings of Case No. 4492 of 2018 (State Vs. Vishnu Gupta), arising out of Case Crime No. 0689 of 2017, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 406 I.P.C., Police Station Hathras Gate, Hathras, pending in the court of Chief Judical Magistrate, Hathras.

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the F.I.R. has been lodged with false and frivolous allegations on 12.09.2017 by Block Education Officer, Ramanpur, District Hathras, on the basis of the enquiry report submitted by the Additional District Magistrate, (F&R) Hathras that the applicants were indulged in raising fake bills with regard to the vehicle services and had gained a sum of Rs.3,08,593/- in connivance with the District Basic Education Officer, Hathras and as such, the F.I.R. was lodged on the basis of the directions issued by the District Magistrate.

4. Before arguing the case on merits, learned counsel for the applicants while pressing the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. submits that after submission of charge sheet the applicants have been summoned by order dated 22.12.2018 and the court below while summoning the applicants has materially erred and did not follow the dictum of law as propounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various cases that summoning in criminal case is a serious matter and the court below without dwelling into material and visualizing the case on the touch stone of probability should not summon accused person to face criminal trial. It is further submitted that the court below has not taken into consideration the material placed before the trial court along with charge sheet and, therefore, the trial court has materially erred in summoning the applicants. The court below has summoned the applicants through a printed order, which is wholly illegal.

5. It has been further submitted that the impugned summoning order dated 22.12.2018 is not a judicial order as it has been passed on a printed proforma without recording any reasons in support of satisfaction for taking cognizance against the applicants and merely the case, Section, date of the order and date of the summon have been filled.

6. It is next submitted that no offence as described in the F.I.R. or in the statement of the witnesses recorded during the course of investigation has taken place and the whole story as narrated in the F.I.R. as well as in the statement of the witnesses has been cooked and manufactured, therefore, the court below has materially erred in summoning the applicants, as such the orders are liable to be set aside.

7. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the applicants has relied upon several judgments of this Court.

Ankit Vs. State of U.P. And Another reported in [2009(9) ADJ 778]

Shakuntala Devi Vs. State of U.P. And 4 others passed in Application U/s 482 No. 11232 of 2018

Avdhesh Vs. State of U.P. And Another reported in [2019(6) ADJ 667]

Dushyant Kumar Vs. State of U.P. And Others passed in Application U/s 482 No. 7206 of 2020

Ashu Rawat Vs. State of U.P. And Another passed in Application U/s 482 No. 13883 of 2020

Rishipal & others Vs. State of U.P. And Another [2019 (3) ADJ 699]

8. Learned A.G.A., however, opposes the contention of learned counsel for the applicants on the ground that the court below keeping in view the charge sheet and material submitted therewith, after applying judicial mind and finding sufficient material on record, summoned the applicants along with other co-accused persons to face trial and, therefore, there is nothing illegal so far as the order of summoning passed by the court below is concerned.

9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, it is ap