Court No. - 49

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7660 of 2021

Applicant :- Dinesh Soni And 9 Others

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

Counsel for Applicant :- Manvendra Singh

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.

1. Heard Sri Manvendra Singh, learned counsel for applicant

and Sri Nagendra Srivastava, learned AGA for the State.

2. Sri Manvendra Singh submits that summoning order dated

18.9.20209, passed by learned Civil Judge (JD)/ FTC (Crime

against Women), Fatehpur Case Crime No. 30 of 2020 under

Sections 12 of Domestic Voilence Act, police station Kotwali,

District Fatehpur is on a printed proforma and reveals non-

application of mind while taking cognizance of the offence. He

places reliance on the decision of this Court in Application U/S

438 No. 5525 of 2020 and 13883 of 2020 and prays for

quashing of the summoning order.

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant

that Civil Judge (JD)/ FTC (Crime against Women), Fatehpur

did not apply his judicial mind at the time of passing the

summoning order against the applicant as the impugned

summoning order has been passed on a printed proforma, which

is not permissible under law. In support of his contention,

learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment

in the case of Ankit Vs. State of U.P. & Another; 2009 (9)

ADJ 778.

4. Certified copy of the impugned summoning order is annexed

as Annexure-4 to the affidavit which goes to show that the order

has been passed on a printed proforma by filling up the blanks.

Blanks on the printed proforma appear to have been filled by

the court employee. Learned Civil Judge (JD)/ FTC (Crime

against Women), Fatehpur has simply put his initial over his

name without applying his judicial mind before passing the said

order.

5. The argument advanced on behalf of applicant has substance.

The use of blanks printed proforma in passing the judicial order

is not proper and the order of summoning has been passed

without application of judicial mind, which is substantiated by

the fact that even the date has not been mentioned filling up the

blanks which has been left in the rubber stamp for mentioning

the date of appearance.

6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, stated

above and the law laid down in case of Ankit Vs. State of U.P.

& Another (supra), the impugned summoning order dated

18.9.2020, is hereby quashed. Learned court below is directed

to pass a fresh order on the complaint after applying his judicial

mind.

7. In above terms, petition is disposed off.

Order Date :- 30.7.2021

S.K.S.