Point of Law : Criminal breach of trust - Conduct of the judicial officers concerned in passing orders on printed proforma by filling up the blanks without application of judicial mind is objectionable and deserves to be deprecated.

JUDGMENT :

1. Learned counsel for the applicant is permitted to correct the district in the body of the application during course of the day.

2. Heard Sri Amrendra Nath Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Anurag Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

3. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the charge sheet dated 22.11.2019 and cognizance order dated 18.03.2020 in Case No.9149 of 2020 (State of U.P. Vs. Pankaj Jaiswal & others) arising out of Case Crime No.1242 of 2017, under Sections 406, 420, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Chakeri, District Kanpur Nagar, pending in the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar. A further prayer has also been made to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid case.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submit that on 07.11.2017 the respondent no.2 lodged an F.I.R. against the applicants, which was registered as case crime no.1242/2017, under Sections 406, 420, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Chakeri, District Kanpur Nagar.

5. As per the prosecution version of the F.I.R, the opposite party no.2 purchased a plot (arazi no.684) from the applicant and after mutation the opposite party no.2 also raised boundary on the aforesaid plot. After one year of the sale deed, the opposite party no.2 came to know from one person namely Shukla Ji that the applicant-Pankanj Jaiswal is not the original owner of the aforesaid plot, which he has purchased from the applicant. Thereafter, the opposite party no.2 demanded his money back from the applicant. The applicant sought two months time to return the money, which he was received from the opposite party no.2. After two months, when the opposite party no.2 demanded his money then the applicant refused to return the money and also threatened to his life and his whole family.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the entire prosecution story is false. No such incident took place and the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that before arguing the case on merits, he wants to draw the attention of the Court on the charge-sheet submitted by the Investigating Officer and submitted that the Investigating Officer had submitted the charge-sheet against the applicants under Section 406, 420 and 506 IPC on 22.11.2019, copy of the same is filed as Annexure No.14 to the affidavit, whereas he further submits that on the charge-sheet, the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance on 18.03.2020 and the case was numbered as Case No.9149 of 2020. The cognizance was taken on the printed proforma by filling the sections of IPC, dates and number and in the said proforma the learned Magistrate without assigning any reason has summoned the applicants for facing trial. Copy of the same is also annexed as Annexure No.14 to the affidavit.

8. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that by the order dated 18.03.2020 cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate on printed proforma without assigning any reason is abused of process of law.

9. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that after submission of charge sheet the applicants have been summoned mechanically by order dated 18.03.2020 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 applicant. The court below has summoned the applicant through a printed order, which is wholly illegal.

10.