Trial courts must apply judicial mind when taking cognizance under Section 190 Cr.P.C., avoiding mechanical processes, to uphold justice and prevent procedural anomalies.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants in all the matters, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent, Shri Vimlendu Tripathi, learned Amicus Curiae and perused the material on record.

2. The judiciary is the bedrock of justice, and its effectiveness depends on adherence to established legal principles. However, a recurring issue plagues the High Court under 482 Cr.P.C. jurisdiction- the trial courts frequently pass summoning orders in contravention of authoritative binding judgments of Constitutional Courts. Despite consistent judgments that clarify the legal framework governing the taking of cognizance, trial courts continue to issue such orders mechanically and arbitrarily, often by inserting case details into pre- drafted or rubber-stamped templates, commonly referred to as “printed-proforma cognizance order”.

3. This issue raises serious concerns about judicial discipline, legal training and judicial accountability. It not only undermines the authority of higher Courts but also leads to unnecessary litigation, wastage of judicial resources, and grave injustice to the litigants.

4. This is a standard practice of the Bar that after filing of the charge sheet, the moment learned Magistrate or the Special Judge, as the case may be, takes the cognizance of the offence on the charge sheet and direct the accused to appear before the court invariably without waiting to reach to stage of Section 207 Cr.P.C., the accused approaches this Court to set- aside the summoning orders based on the argument that the cognizance has taken by the learned Judge mechanically without application of judicial mind on a printed proforma or rubber- stamped format by inserting the name of the accused and corresponding section of code by hand without assigning any reason, and simultaneously prays to quash the charge – sheet.

5. The charge sheets are challenged without reaching the stage of Section 207 Cr.P.C., thereby the accused are oblivious of the fact as to what inculpatory material has been collected by the investigating officer, during the investigation, against them. The reliance are placed on FIR, bail order or, and a direction issued by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for not taking any coercive action against the accused either till the filing of the charge sheet or rarely, till the completion of the trial along with a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. containing only name of the accused and section under which the police has filed the charge sheet, along with the list of witnesses.

6. In essence, significantly in large number of cases-baring few cases-invariably two sets of repetitive arguments are undertaken by the learned counsels; (i) the cognizance order has been passed in a mechanically manner without assigning any ground on a printed and rubber stamp proforma, and (ii) outrightly, makes a prayer for “no coercive action” means the applicant(s) may not be arrested during trial and places reliance upon the case of Satendra Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another , [(2022) 10 SCC 51] and further seeks disposal with the liberty to file a discharge application before the trial court. These applicants have been invariably decided by the Courts in a routine manner by directing that no coercive action be taken against the applicant until the filing or disposal of a discharge application before the trial court, and dispose of the matter with a liberty to approach the trial court for discharge.

6.1 It serves no purpose. The accused already possesses a statutory right to file a discharge application before the trial court; and therefore there is no requirement to approach the High Court for such relief. As far as the relief of “no coercive action,” is concerned, it is not recognized in criminal jurisprudence at the stage of quashing the cogni