JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the proceedings of cognizance order dated 5.9.2020 as well as entire proceedings of Case No.1594 of 2020 (State vs Dharmraj and others) arising out of Case Crime No.68 of 2020 under Sections 325,323, 504 IPC P.S. Banshi District Siddharthnagar pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Banshi, District Siddarthnagar.

3. As per the prosecution version of the FIR which was lodged by the opposite party no.2, on 25.12.2019 when he was going to his home from the field, accused persons namely Dharmraj, Narku, Sushil, Sunil and Lavkush started abusing him without any reason and on being objected, they had beaten him with lathi and danda due to which he sustained injuries. The incident was witnessed by many people.

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

5. Learned counsel for the applicants 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 chargesheet against the applicants under Sections 323, 325, 504 IPC on 6.4.2020, copy of the same is filed as Annexure No.8 to the affidavit, whereas he further submits that on the charge-sheet, the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance on 5.9.2020 and the case was numbered as Case No.1594 of 2020. The cognizance was taken on the prined 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 annexed as Annexure No.9 to the affidavit.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that by the order dated 5.9.2020 cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate on printed proforma without assigning any reason is abused of process of law.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that after submission of charge sheet the applicant has been summoned mechanically by order dated 5.9.2020 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 applicants through a printed order, which is wholly illegal.

8. It is vehemently urged by learned counsel for the applicants that the impugned summoning order dated 5.9.2020 is not sustainable in the eye of law, as the same has been passed in mechanical manner without applying the judicial mind, because on the face of record itself it is apparent that impugned summoning order dated 5.9.2020 has been passed by the Magistrate concerned on printed proforma by filling up the gaps, therefore the same is liable to be quashed by this Court.

9. Learned counsel for the applicant has given much emphasis that if the cognizance has been taken on the printed proforma, the same is not sustainable.

10. Per contra, learned AGA for the State submitted that considering the material evidences and allegations against the applicants on record, as on date, as per prosecution case, the cognizable offence against the applicants is made out, therefore, application is liable to be dismissed but has not denied that the leaned Magistrate has taken cognizance on the pri