The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the Magistrate to apply his mind and reflect a prima facie opinion based on the material collected during investigation when passing a cognizance order.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Gajendra Pratap, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Arvind Singh Patel, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Ramesh Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The present application has been filed for quashing the impugned charge sheet No. 130 of 2013 dated 31.12.2023 and summoning order dated 4.8.2017 in Case No. 1203 of 2017 (State vs. Amit Kuamr Dwivedi and another), u/s 323, 504, 325 I.P.C. and entire proceeding arising out of Non Cognizable Report No. 117 of 2013, u/s 323, 504 I.P.C., P.S. Kaundhiyara, District Prayagraj, pending before A.C.J.M.-5, Allahabad.

3. Contention of counsel for the applicants is that the cognizance order dated 4.8.2023 is bad in the eyes of law as the same was passed on a printed proforma which clearly shows that there is non application of mind by the learned Magistrate.

4. From perusal of the cognizance order dated 4.8.2017, it appears that this order is nothing but signing on a printed proforma by the Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Allahabad.

5. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment of Lalankumar Singh vs State of Maharashtra; 2022 SCC Online SC 1383 has observed in para 38 that "the order of issuance of process is not an empty formality. The Magistrate is required to apply his mind as to whether sufficient ground for proceeding exists in the case or not. The formation of such an opinion is required to be stated in the order itself. The order is liable to be set aside if no reasons are given therein while coming to the conclusion that there is a prima facie case against the accused".

6. Similarly, the Apex Court in the case of Sunil Bharti Mittal vs Central Bureau of Investigation; 2010(11) SCC 125 observed in para 53 which is as under:-

"53. However, the words "sufficient ground for proceeding" appearing in Section 204 are of immene importance. It is these words which amply suggest that an opinion is to be formed only after due application of mind that there is sufficient basis for proceeding against the said accused and formation of such an opinion is to be stated in the order itself. The order is liable to be set aside if no reason is given therein while coming to the conclusion that there is prima facie case against the accused, though the order need not contain detailed reasons. A fortiori, the order would be bad in law if the reason given turns out to be ex facie incorrect."

7. Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the judgment of Satya Pal vs State of U.P. and another; 2023 (4) ADJ 345 (LB), held that signing on printed proforma has no cognizance at all as the same is without application of mind and quashed the cognizance order. The relevant paragraph no. 21 of the Judgment is quoted as under:

"21. In view of the above, the 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. The summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter and the order must reflect that Magistrate had applied his mind to the facts as well as law applicable thereto, whereas the impugned summoning order was passed in mechanical manner without application of judicial mind."

8. This Court had an occasion to deal with such issue in Application u/s 482 No. 26416 of 2021 (Smt. Akali Devi and others vs. State of U.P. and another) and decided on 26.9.2023, observing that practice of taking cognizance on printed proforma on the part of the Magistrate is absolutely erroneous because that does not show application of his mind on the material collected during investigation. Paragraph-8 of the aforesaid judgment dated 26.9.2023 reads as under:-

"8. In view of above legal position, this Court is of the view that merely signing and filling the date and case crime no. in printed proforma is absolutely non-application of mind because the cognizance order must reflect the prima facie opinion of the learned Magistrate."

9. In view of above legal position, this