An order of cognizance cannot be passed on a printed proforma without applying judicial mind and considering the evidence on record.

Court No. - 71

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 33981 of 2022

Applicant :- Pooja Pandey

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

Counsel for Applicant :- Rudra Kant Mishra,M.P.S. Chauhan

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

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

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record.

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

quash the charge-sheet dated 15.12.2019, cognizance order

dated 21.09.2020 as well as entire proceeding of Case No.8030

of 2020 (State Vs. Krishna Pathak and Another) arising out of

Case Crime No.0255 of 2019, under sections 196, 197, 467,

468, 471, 420 I.P.C., P.S. Robertsganj, District Sonebhadra,

pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonebhadra.

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 has 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 has been

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 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 21.09.2020, 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 21.09.2020 is liable to be

quashed.

Without going into the merits of the case cognizance order

dated 21.09.2020 is hereby quashed. The trial court court is

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

The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed,

accordingly.

Order Date :- 6.1.2023

Radhika

Digitally signed by :-

RADHIKA VISHWAKARMA

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad