A cognizance order passed on a printed proforma, without the court applying its judicial mind to the evidence on record, is illegal and improper and can be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Court No. - 71

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 39053 of 2022

Applicant :- Sudama Prajapati And 3 Others

Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another

Counsel for Applicant :- Md. Nuruddin Khan,Umakant

Chaudhary

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicants; learned A.G.A. for the

State and perused the record.

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to

quash the charge-sheet dated 27.01.2020, cognizance order

dated 10.03.2021 as well as all consequential proceedings of

Case No.15676 of 2021 (State Vs. Sudama Prajapati & Ors.)

arising out of Case Crime No.379 of 2019, under Sections 323,

308 504 I.P.C., Police Station-Campierganj, District-Gorakhpur,

pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate-III, Gorakhpur.

It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the

cognizance has been taken on the printed proforma so it cannot

be said that the lower court had applied its judicial mind in

passing the cognizance order. Hence, prayer is made to quash

the cognizance order as well as the chargesheet.

So far as the argument that the cognizance order passed on a

printed proforma is concerned, although it has been held by this

Court in the case of Megh Nath Gupta & another Vs. State of

U.P. and another, 2008 (62) ACC 826 that the Magistrate is not

required to pass detailed reasoned order at the time of taking

cognizance on the charge-sheet, but it does not mean that order

of taking cognizance can be passed by filling up the blanks on

printed proforma. At the time of passing any judicial order

including the order of taking cognizance on the charge-sheet,

the court is required to apply its judicial mind and even the

order of taking cognizance cannot be passed in mechanical

manner. Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Harischandra

Prasad Mani and others Vs. State of Jharkhand and another

(2007) 15 Supreme Court Cases 494, Fakhruddin Ahmad Vs.

State of Uttaranchal and another (2008) 17 Supreme Court

Cases 157 and Ankit Vs. State of U.P. and others, U.P.

Criminal Report 2009 (3) 427 has established that if the order

on printed proforma is passed, it establishes that the Magistrate

concerned has not applied his mind to the evidence on record in

order to take cognizance of the offence concerned.

In the present case also the cognizance order has been passed

by the Magistrate concerned on a printed proforma just by

filling up the blanks in the order, which clearly shows that the

Magistrate concerned has not applied his judicial mind and has

not gone through the material collected by the Investigating

Officer against the applicant in the case.

The result is that the order impugned dated 10.03.2021, which

has been passed by filling the blanks on the printed proforma is

illegal, incorrect and improper, which cannot be sustained.

Hence, the cognizance order dated 10.03.2021 is liable to be

quashed.

Without going into the merits of the case cognizance order

dated 10.03.2021 is hereby quashed. The trial court court is

directed to pass a fresh order regarding cognizance as per law.

Regarding prayer for quashing of the charge-sheet no argument

is put before the Court.

The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of

accordingly.

Order Date :- 11.1.2023

Jyotsana

Digitally signed by :-

JYOTSANA SINGH

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad