Judicial orders, especially those involving the summoning of an accused, cannot be issued on printed proformas filled in mechanically. Such practice demonstrates a lack of application of judicial mind and renders the order unsustainable and liable to be quashed.

JUDGMENT :

MADAN PAL SINGH, J.

1. Heard Mr. Sarvesh Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the appellants, and learned A.G.A. appearing for the State respondent. Despite the fact that notice has been served upon opposite party no.2 personally as per the office report dated 28th September, 2024, no one appears for opposite party no.2 even in the revised reading of the list.

2. By means of the present criminal appeal under Section 14A(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the appellants are challenging the charge-sheet dated 22nd May, 2022, cognizance/summoning order dated 23rd November, 2022 as well as entire proceedings of Session Case No. 963 of 2022 (State Vs. Raja & Others) under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3 (1) (da) of S.C./S.T. Act arising out of Case Crime No. 108 of 2022, pending in the Court of Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Kannauj.

3. While assailing the impugned order, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned Special Judge has not applied judicial mind while passing the order, as the same has been made on a printed proforma in which the name of the accused, case crime number and sections have been filled in by hand.

4. Relying upon the decision of this Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ankit vs. State of U.P. and another , JIC 2010 (1) 432, it is submitted that the impugned order, being on a printed proforma, is clearly without application of judicial mind and is liable to be quashed on this ground alone.

5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer but has admitted that the impugned order has been passed on a printed proforma. Therefore, in view of the decision in Ankit (supra), it is submitted that the Special Judge concerned may be directed to pass a fresh order.

6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned A.G.A. and have also perused the record.

7. The certified copy of the summoning order has been appended with the paper book. On perusal of the same, it is evident that it is a typed proforma in which the blanks have been filled in by the Special Judge in handwriting, leading to the conclusion that the order has been passed in a mechanical manner without application of judicial mind.

8. In the case of Ankit (supra), the co-ordinate Bench of this Court has not only castigated and deprecated the practice of passing proforma orders in a fill-in-the-blanks manner but also directed the Registrar General of this Court to issue a circular letter. The relevant paragraphs are reiterated hereinbelow:

"10. .....The manner in which the impugned order has been prepared shows that the learned magistrate did not at all apply his judicial mind at the time of passing this order and after the blanks were filled up by some employee of the court, he has put his initial on the seal of the court. This method of passing judicial order is wholly illegal. If for the sake of argument it is assumed that the blanks on the printed proforma were filled up in the handwriting of the learned magistrate, even then the impugned order would be illegal and invalid, because an order of taking cognizance or any other judicial order cannot be passed by filling up blanks on a printed proforma. Although, as held by this Court in the case of Megh Nath Gupta & another vs. State of U.P. and another, 2008 (62) ACC 826, in which reference has been made to the cases of Deputy Chief Controller Import and Export vs. Roshan Lal Agrawal, 2003 (46) ACC 686 (SC), U.P. Pollution Control Board vs. Mohan Meakins, AIR 2000 SC 1456 and Kanti Bhadra vs. State of West Bengal, 2000 (40) ACC 441 (SC), the magistrate is not req