The need for the Magistrate to apply judicial mind while taking cognizance of an offence and the requirement for fair and proper investigation as the primary duty of the Investigating Officer.

JUDGMENT :

(Shamim Ahmed, J.)

1. Heard Ms. Suman Lata, learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. This Criminal Appeal under Section 14-A (1) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred as ‘S.C./S.T. Act’) has been preferred against the impugned orders dated 08.01.2021 and 06.04.2019 passed by Court of learned Sessons Judge (Court No. 2), Raebareli, in Criminal Case No. 92 of 2019, State v. Hamid Raza, Case Crime No. 212 of 2018 under Sections 323,504,506, I.P.C. and Section 3(1)Da, 3(1)Dha, and 3(2)5 of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Shivratganj, District Amethi, and Chargesheet No. A53 of 2018 dated 25.9.2018 submitted in the said case.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that on 03.09.2018 at 14:57 hrs. the opposite party no.2 lodged an F.I.R. against the appellant which was registered as Case Crime No. 0212 of 2018, under Sections 323,504,506, I.P.C. and Section 3(1)Da and 3(2)5 of S.C./S.T. Act.

4. As per the prosecution version of the F.I.R., when the opposite party no.2-Ramdaas was going to see the fields on 3.9.2018, the appellant came there, beaten him, abused with caste languages and want away from there giving life-threats to him.

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

6. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that before arguing the case on merits, he wants to draw attention of this Court on the charge-sheet dated 25.9.2018 submitted by the Investigating Officer in mechanical manner under Sections 323,504,506, I.P.C. and Section 3(1)Da, 3(1)Dha, and 3(2)5 of S.C./S.T. Act, copy of the same is filed as Annexure No. 3 to the affidavit, whereas he further submits that on the charge-sheet, the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance on 06.04.2019 and the case was numbered as Case No. 92 of 2019. 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 appellant for facing trial. Copy of the cognizance order is also annexed as Annexure No. 2 to the affidavit.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that by the order dated 06.04.2019 cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate on printed proforma, without assigning any reason is abuse of process of law and the same is without application of mind and is in a routine manner.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that after submission of charge sheet and cognizance order on printed proforma, the appellant has been summoned mechanically by order dated 06.04.2019 and the court below while summoning the appellant 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 appellant through a printed order, which is wholly illegal.

9. It is vehemently urged by learned counsel for the appellant that the impugned cognizance/summoning order dated 06.04.2019 is not sustainable in the eye of law, as the same has been passed in a mechanical manner without applying the judicial mind, because on the face of record itself it is apparent that impugned cognizance/summoning order dated 06.04.2019 has been passed by the Magistrate concerned on printed proforma by filling up the gaps, therefore the same is liable to be quashed b