Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(All) 29380
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
KRISHNA PAL SINGH – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
A482/29101/2022
Orders summoning an accused should reflect that there has been some application of mind while passing the same and should not be passed on printed proforma/cyclostyled formats.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SUMMONS - QUASHING - [Section 482 Cr.P.C.] - Order summoning an accused need not be lengthy and a detailed order but at least it is expected by the said court that the same should reflect that there has been some application of mind while passing the same.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the impugned Charge Sheet and cognizance and summoning order passed by the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly. The applicant argued that the summoning order was passed on a printed proforma by filling in the gaps by ink and did not show any application of mind.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the summoning order was indeed passed on a printed proforma by filling in the gaps by ink and did not reflect any application of mind. The Court also noted that the passing of orders in printed proforma/cyclostyled formats have been deprecated by various High Courts, including the Allahabad High Court.
Issues: Whether the summoning order was passed without application of mind.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the summoning order was passed without application of mind and was therefore liable to be quashed. The Court relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Amit Jani vs. State of U.P. and others, which held that the passing of orders in printed proforma/cyclostyled formats have been deprecated by various High Courts as they do not reflect application of mind.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the application and quashed the impugned summoning order. The matter was remanded back to the court below to pass fresh order in accordance with law within three weeks from the date of production of certified copy of the order.
Court No. - 69
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 29101 of 2022
Applicant :- Krishna Pal Singh
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Praveen Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Poonam Srivastava
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
List revised.
Heard Sri Praveen Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the
applicant, Ms. Poonam Srivastava, learned counsel for the
opposite party no.2, Ms. Arti Agarwal, learned counsel for the
State and perused the records.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been
filed by the applicant with the prayer to allow the present
application and quash the impugned Charge Sheet No.01 dated
10.06.2021 and impugned cognizance and summoning order
dated 01.10.2021 passed by Learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Court No.2, Bareilly in Case No.1610 of 2021
(State Vs. Krishna Pal Singh) arising out of Case Crime No.87
of 2021, under Section 494, 506 IPC, P.S. Subhash Nagar,
District Bareilly during the pendency of this application and
with the further prayer to stay the further proceedings of
aforesaid case, during the pendency of present application.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the order
impugned summoning the applicant dated 01.10.2021 annexed
on page 37 of the paper book is an order passed on a printed
proforma by filling in the gaps by ink. Even the said order
shows that there is non application of mind as the court
concerned has stated that it has perused the records, the grounds
are sufficient, cognizance is taken, the case be registered and
the accused be summoned through summons. It is argued that
the said order is totally without application of mind and does
not show that there was any application of judicial mind while
passing the same and even the same is on a printed proforma.
Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned counsel
for the State though opposed the petition but could not dispute
the arguments as aforesaid.
This Court has perused the order impugned dated 1.10.2021
which shows that the same is on a printed proforma by filling in
the gaps by ink. It has been settled principle of law that the
order summoning an accused need not be lengthy and a detailed
order but at least it is expected by the said court that the same
should reflect that there has been some application of mind
while passing the same. The order in a cryptic manner states
that the records have been perused, grounds are sufficient,
cognizance is taken, the case be registered and then the accused
be summoned for a particular date. The court should at least
pass an order showing that there has been application of mind
on the facts and circumstances of the case and on the records.
Even otherwise the order is on the printed proforma by filling in
the gaps by ink.
Further, time and again, it has been held that orders of printed
proforma cannot be passed and the said system of passing such
orders have been deprecated. The summoning order dated
01.10.2021 passed in the present matter is on a cyclostyled
proforma in which the details have been filled with ink.
In the case of Amit Jani vs. State of U.P. and others: (2020) 5
ADJ 1, a Division Bench of this Court has held as follows:-
"The passing of orders in printed proforma/cyclostyled formats
have been deprecated by various High Courts including this
court as they do not reflect application of mind. Reference is
made to the following judgments:-
1. 2000 ILR (Kar) 4773, Vijaya Bank Vs. State.
2. 2010(9) ADJ 594, Abdul Rasheed Vs. State of U.P. &
another.
3. 2009 (67) ACC 532, Ankit Vs. State of U.P. & another.
4. 2010 (3) ADJ 622, Saurabh Dewana Vs. State of U.P."
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and without
going into the merits of the case as of now, the summoning
order dated 01.10.2021 is hereby set aside.
The present application is allowed to this extent.
The matter is remanded back to the court below to pass fresh
