A summoning order passed by filling blanks in a printed proforma is illegal and unsustainable as it demonstrates a mechanical approach and a failure to apply judicial mind to the facts and law of the case.

1. Case called out in the revised call. Despite service of notice, no one has appeared on behalf of the opposite party no.2 to press the present criminal appeal.

2. Heard Sri Ajay Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.G.A. appearing for the State respondent.

3. 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 assailing the legality and validity of the cognizance/summoning order dated 01.08.2024 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Kaushambi in Case No. 64 of 2024 (State Vs. Manik Chandra Pal & Ors.) under Section 323, 504 IPC and Section 3(2)(va) and 3(1)(s) of SC/ST Act, as well as aforesaid proceeding of the said case.

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

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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 required to pass a detailed reasoned order at the time of taking cog