JUDGMENT

Sanjay Kumar Singh, J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P./opposite party no. 1 and perused the record.

2. The instant application has been preferred by the applicants with a prayer to quash the charge-sheet no. 58 of 2023, dated 06.05.2023 arising out of case crime no. 49 of 2023, cognizance/summoning order dated 08.06.2023 and entire proceeding of Case No. 9928 of 2023 ( State v. Pavan ), under Sections 376 , 506, 34, 323 I.P.C., Police Station-Chola, District- Bulandshahar pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahar.

3. The brief facts of the case which are required to be stated are that the opposite party no. 2, who is victim in this case, lodged F.I.R. on 22.03.2023 against the applicants for the alleged offence under Sections 376 , 506 and 34 I.P.C. in which, after culmination of investigation, charge-sheet dated 06.05.2023 has been submitted under Sections 376 , 323, 506, 34 I.P.C. against the applicant no.1 and under Sections 323 , 506 and 34 I.P.C. against the applicant nos. 2, 3 and 4 on which the learned Magistrate took cognizance on 08.06.2023, which is the subject matter of challenge in the present application.

4. The main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicants is that the learned Magistrate, without applying his judicial mind, has taken the cognizance in the matter on printed proforma, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law and liable to be quashed. The said cognizance/summoning order is extracted here in below:-

5. Learned A.G.A. has also conceded by submitting that the impugned cognizance/summoning order dated 08.06.2023 has been passed on a printed proforma by filling up the blanks, which has been prepared for summoning the accused after filing charge-sheet, hence the matter may be remanded to the concerned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate with the direction to pass a fresh order.

6. Having heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, it is relevant to mentioned that it is well settled that before a Magistrate can be said to have taken cognizance of an offence, it is imperative that he must have taken notice of the accusations and applied his mind to the allegations made in the F.I.R. and the material filed along with charge-sheet. It needs little emphasis that it is only when the Magistrate applies his mind and is satisfied that the allegations, if proved, would constitute an offence and decides to initiate proceedings against the alleged offender, that it can be positively stated that he has taken cognizance of the offence.

7. It is very strange that despite there being a series of decisions of the Apex Court and this Court disapproving such practice of passing orders on printed proforma by the judicial officers, it is very painful and unfortunate to see that applicant in the present case has been summoned by the Magistrate by an order in which blanks have been filled in on a printed proforma without applying judicial mind. This type of order has already been held unsustainable by this Court in the case of Ankit v. State of U.P. and another , JIC 2010 (1) 432 relying on in a number of decisions of the Apex Court. The relevant portion of the said decision, is extracted below:

"Although as held by this Court in the case of Megh Nath Guptas & Anr v. State of U.P. And Anr, 2008 (62) ACC 826, in which reference has been made to the cases of Deputy Chief Controller Import and Export v. Roshan Lal Agarwal, 2003 (40) ACC 686 (SC), UP Pollution Control Board v. Mohan Meakins, 2000 (2) JIC 159 (SC): AIR 2000 SC 1456 and Kanti Bhadra v. State of West Bengal, 2000 (1)