IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Shamim Ahmed, J.
Ved Krishna – Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. – Respondents
Application u/S.482 No.1177 of 2023
Decided On : 07-02-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. application for quashing proceedings (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. allegations of false implication and mechanical summoning (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. judicial requirement for taking cognizance (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. importance of judicial mind in investigations (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 5. necessity of judicial reasoning in cognizance (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 6. criticism of mechanical judicial orders (Para 24) |
| 7. invalidity of the summoning order (Para 25) |
| 8. conclusion and remittance of the matter (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
JUDGMENT :
Shamim Ahmed, J.
Heard Sri Rishad Murtaza, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Manoj Singh learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to quash the proceedings of Case No.1004/2019 pending before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Faizabad under Sections 427 , 188 I.P.C. relating to Crime No.493/2018, Police Station Pura Kalandar, District Faizabad as well as summoning order dated 02.04.2019 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I Faizabad in Case No.1004/2019, relating to Crime No.493/2018, under Sections 427 , 188 I.P.C., Police Station Pura Kalandar, District Faizabad.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that a First Information Report was registered by opposite party No.2, Police Station Pura Kalandar, District Faizabad under Sections 504 , 506, 427, 447 and 379 I.P.C.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that as per the version of the F.I.R. the informant is pairokar of Sri Laxmi Kant Jhunjhunwala and Sri Prakash Chandra Jhunjhunwal who have land situated at Gata No.383 and in Gata No.399 they have 11 Bigha 15 Biswa 5 Dhoor registered in the revenue record and the competent court has directed for its partition. It is also mentioned that informant has made an application to the District Magistrate on whose direction Consolidation Officer and Police people have got pegs fixed on the spot on 17.05.2018 and they had submitted the report to the District Magistrate concerned and the same has been approved and disposed on 11.06.2018. It is further alleged that instead of pegs, cemented pillars 40-45 in numbers, were erected and the accused person along with his 20-25 companions have demolished the aforesaid cemented pillars and carried some to them and when the informant came to know about this incident then he has again given an application for demarcation and upon the direction of District Magistrate a strong med/boundary was created but again the accused persons got it demolished and they also abused and threatened the informant.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant 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.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that before arguing the case on merits, he wants to draw attention of this Court on the charge-sheet dated 31.12.2018 submitted by the Investigating Officer in mechanical manner under Sections 427 and 188 I.P.C., copy of the same is filed as Annexure No.7 to the affidavit, whereas he further submits that on the charge-sheet, the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance on 02.04.2019. 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 applicant for facing trial. Copy of the cognizance order is also annexed as Annexure No.1 to the affidavit.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that by the order dated 02.04.2019 cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate on printed proforma without assigning any reason is abuse of process of law and the same was without application of mind and was in a routine manner.
8. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that after submission of charge shee
Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation
Abdul Rehman Antulay vs. R.S.Nayak
Bhushan Kumar and Anr. v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr.
Darshan Singh Ram Kishan v. State of Maharashtra
H.N.Rishbud vs. State of Delhi
Hussainara Khatoon (I) vs. State of Bihar
Kanti Bhadra Vs State of West Bengal
Menka Gandhi vs. Union of India
Point of Law : Criminal breach of trust - Conduct of the judicial officers concerned in passing orders on printed proforma by filling up the blanks without application of judicial mind is objectionab....
When information of a cognizable offence is received or such commission is suspected, proper police officer has authority to enter in investigation of same but where information relates to a non-cogn....
Judicial orders must reflect application of mind; mechanical summoning orders without reasoning are invalid.
The summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter and the order must reflect that the Magistrate had applied his mind to the facts and the law applicable.
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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.