JUDGMENT :

Rahul Chaturvedi, J.

1. In these two applications u/s 482 Cr. P. C. the petitioners are assailing the legality and validity of summoning/cognizance orders passed by the respective courts below summoning the accused-applicants u/s 3(2)A of the Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, 1984. Since there is common legal question involved in both the petitions that cognizance orders passed by the respective Magistrates are not sustainable in the eyes of law as the same have been passed on a printed proforma without applying its judicial application of mind. Therefore, under these circumstances, both these petitions are being decided by this common judgment.

2. Heard S/Shri Anurag Dubey and Nitin Sharma, learned counsel for the respective applicants; S/Shri Satendra Tiwari, Faraz Kazmi and Ajay Kumar Sharma, learned Additional Government Advocates. Perused the entire record of the case.

3. To appreciate the controversy involved it is imperative to give a bird’s eye view to the factual aspects of the issue and respective proceedings.

4. FACTS OF APPLICATION U/S 482 No.-398 of 2023 :

By means of the present application the extraordinary powers of this Court is being invoked seeking the quashing of entire criminal proceeding of Case No.1588 of 2018 (State vs. Bhawarpal Singh and others), charge sheet dated 20.6.2016, arising out of Case Crime No.149 of 2016, u/s 3(2)A of Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, Police Station Tirwa, District Kannauj, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kannauj and summoning/cognizance order dated 27.10.2018.

5. Long and short of this case is that the applicant along with other co-villagers have allegedly encroached upon a land of pond situated over Gata No.2029 (Mi) having area 0.490 hectare. On this score an F.I.R. was lodged for an unknown time and date of the incident, by opposite party no.2 on 22.3.2016 at 16.50 hours against the applicants and others.

(a) After lodging of the F.I.R., investigating Officer of the case has visited the place of incident and prepare a site plan. In addition to this, the Investigating Officer of the case has recorded the statement of the then Village Pradhan on 21.4.2016 u/s 161 Cr.P.C. Investigating Officer without holding in-depth probe into the matter and without holding any proper measurement of the land in dispute, in a most cursory and perfunctory manner, has submitted a report u/s 173(2) Cr.P.C. on 20.6.2016. After submission of report u/s 173(2) Cr.P.C., as per prevalent practice now-a-days, the learned A.C.J.M., Kannauj on a printed proforma, after filling in the blanks, on 27.10.2018 has taken cognizance of the offences u/s 3(2)A of the Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, 1984 (for the sake of brevity hereinafter referred to as ‘PDPP Act’), against the applicants and others. It is argued by the counsel for applicant that there is total non-application of judicial mind while taking cognizance of the offence.

(b) It is interesting to point out here, that the concerned Magistrate has not even named the charge-sheeted accused persons in his cognizance order and calling upon them to face the criminal trial. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant, that it is the height of total non application of mind by the concerned Magistrate, who has not even named the accused persons in the cognizance order. It has been strenuously submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that through various judgments this Court has time and again have deprecated this practice of taking cognizance on a printed proforma in a most cursory and perfunctory fashion. Further submission is that learned Magistrate ought to have at least named the persons against whom he is going to prosecute for the alleged offence u/s 3(2)A of PDPP Act. Since the way and manner in which the cognizance was taken by the concerned Magistrate, all the accused persons were unaware that any such proceeding is pending against them and only after coming to kno