The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for judicial officers to apply judicial mind and not use printed proforma in passing judicial orders.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Sudhir Kumar Tripathi, 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 of the entire proceedings of Special Trial No. 582 of 2020, Case Crime No. 59 of 2019, under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station-Ahirauli Bazar, District-Kushinagar, pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (S.C.)/(S.T.) Act, Kushinagar (State Vs. Pramod Kumar Shahi and Others) as well as summoning order dated 05.12.2020 passed by the aforesaid court in respect of the aforesaid case, with a further prayer to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid case.

3. Learned counsel for applicants submitted that the entire prosecution story is false and applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submitted that impugned charge sheet dated 16.09.2020 and cognizance taken on 05.12.2020 by the court below on the printed proforma, is without application of mind and the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law. He further submitted that the same controversy has been settled by this Court vide order dated 9.8.2021 passed in Application U/S No. 11334 of 2021 (Pankaj Jaiswal Vs. State of U.P. & Another).

4. Learned AGA opposed the prayer but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

5. Fair and proper investigation is the primary duty of the Investigating Officer. No investigating agency can take unduly long time in completing investigation. There is implicit right under Article 21 for speedy trial which in turn encompasses speedy investigation, inquiry, appeal, revision and retrial. There is clear need for time line in completing investigation for having in-house oversight mechanism wherein accountability for adhering to lay down timeline, can be fixed at different levels in the hierarchy, vide Dilawar vs. State of Haryana, (2018) 16 SCC 521, Menka Gandhi vs. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597, Hussainara Khatoon (I) vs. State of Bihar, (1980)1 SCC 81, Abdul Rehman Antulay vs. R.S. Nayak, (1992) 1 SCC 225 and P. Ramchandra Rao vs. State of Karnatka, (2002) 4 SCC 578.

6. For the purposes of investigation, offences are divided into two categories "cognizable" and "non-cognizable". When information of a cognizable offence is received or such commission is suspected, the proper police officer has the authority to enter in the investigation of the same but where the information relates to a non-cognizable offence, he shall not investigate it without the order of the competent Magistrate. Investigation includes all the proceedings under the Cr.P.C. for the collection of evidence conducted by a police officer or by any person other than a Magistrate (who is authorised by a Magistrate in his behalf). Investigation consists of steps, namely (i)proceeding to spot, (ii) ascertainment of the facts and circumstances of the case, (iii) discovery and arrest of the suspected offender, (iv) collection of evidence relating to the commission of the offence and (v) formation of opinion as to whether on the material collected therein to place the accused before a Magistrate for trial and if so to take necessary steps for the same by filing a charge sheet under Section 173, Cr.P.C., vide H.N. Rishbud vs. State of Delhi, AIR 1955 SC 196. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate has to take cognizance after application of judicial mind and by reasoned order and not in mechanical manner.

7. In the case of Bhushan Kumar and Anr. v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr., AIR 2012 SC 1747, the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to observe that section 204 of the Code does not mandate the Magistrate to explicitly state the reasons for issuance of summons. It clearly states that if in the opinion of a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence, there is sufficient ground for proceed in the case of Basaruddin & others Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2011 (1) JIC 335 (All)(LB), the Hon'ble