Point of Law: Cognizance of offences - It is settled view that though Magistrate is not required to pass a detailed order when taking cognizance on chargesheet but it does not mean that order of taking cognizance can be passed by filling up the blanks on printed format.

JUDGMENT :

Vikas Kunvar Srivastav, J.

1. The case is called out.

2. Learned counsel for the applicants Sri Sheikh Mohammad Ali, Advocate and learned A.G.A. for the State are present in the Court.

3. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is moved on behalf of accused-applicants with following prayer:-

"That by means of the instant petition petitioners are challenging the impugned summoning order dated 16.9.2020 passed by Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magsitrate-II, Bahraich in Criminal Case No.9645/2020, State Versus Babu @ Naseem and others, relating to case crime no. 204/2020, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 452, 325 of I.P.C. at police station Huzurpur, District Bahraich by means of which the petitioners have been summoned to face the trial on the basis of false and concocted story and also against the charge sheet dated 11.6.2020."

4. On perusal of record, it seems that vide order dated 16.09.2020, learned Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magsitrate-II, Bahraich purported to have taken cognizance of offence and issued summons, fixing 13.10.2020, to the accused. It is obvious from the face of the summons that it is a typographical format having several blanks to be filled mutatis mutandis as and when required. It further appears that the blanks are filled up with date only and lastly the initial is put by the concerned Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magsitrate-II, Bahraich.

5. Nothing has been endorsed with regard to perusal of the charge sheet, consideration upon the evidences, satisfaction as to constitution of offence found thereupon, is recorded in the handwriting of the said Judicial Magsitrate-II, Bahraich. It manifest on it's face that there is a non-application of judicial mind by the concerned officer.

6. The order dated 16.09.2020 of summoning the accused challenged in the instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is being reproduced hereunder so as to find out the answer whether the concerned court, Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magsitrate-II, Bahraich has legally taken cognizance of offence, while passing the order aforesaid and to further discuss legality of passing the summoning order against a person in a criminal case, in such a mechanical way, by filling the blanks in the typographed format. The order dated 16.09.2020 is quoted hereunder:-

U;k;ky; vij flfoy tt¼v0[k0½@ts0,e0 f++}rh;]cgjkbp

eq0la0&9645@20

ljdkj cuke& ckcw mQZ ulheQ vkfn

/kkjk-323] 504] 506] 452] 325 vkbZŒihŒlhŒ

v0la0& 204@20

Fkkuk&gqtwjiqj

vkt ;g vkjksi i= tfj;s lh0vks isjksdkj }kjk izkIr gqvkA dsl Mk;jh ,oa leLr izi=ksa dk voykssdu fd;k lKku fy;k x;kA

vkns'k

ntZ jft0 gksA vfHk;qä tfj;s leu fnukad 13&10&2020 dks ryc gksA

vij flfoy tt¼v0[k0½@

@ts0,e0 f}rh; cgjkbp

7. Passing of summoning order in such a mechanical way without reflecting the application of judicial mind over the allegations/police report under Section 190 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 by the Magistrate has become prevalent in their practice, as it is seen in applications moved by aggrieved persons before the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

8. In para 17 of Fakhruddin Ahmad Vs. State of Uttaranchal and Another reported in (2008) 17 SCC 157, Hon'ble the Supreme Court held as under :-

"Nevertheless, it is 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."

9. It would b