The necessity for magistrates to apply their judicial mind in cognizance decisions was upheld, emphasizing that summoning orders must reflect thoughtful consideration of facts and law.

JUDGMENT: (per Alok Mahra J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned Deputy Advocate General for the State.

2. In the present C482 application, the present applicants are seeking to quash entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 508 of 2015, State vs. Arvind Sharma and others, pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate Vikasnagar, Dehradun, wherein the present applicants are facing the trial for the offences punishable under Sections 457, 427, 323, 504, 506, 488, 511 and

120B of IPC (arising out of FIR No.65 of 2015).

3. Brief facts of the case are that an FIR was lodged by respondent no. 2, registered as FIR No. 65 of

2015 by implicating the applicants with the allegation that the applicants alongwith two other were trying to raise illegal construction on the rented shop of respondent no.2. On this FIR, the investigation was commenced and thereafter charge sheet was filed.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the Trial Court took cognizance on the charge sheet in a printed proforma by filling up the blanks which itself reveals that the learned Trial Court while taking cognizance has not applied its judicial mind.

5. I perused the summoning order and on perusal of the same it reveals that the summoning order has been passed in a printed proforma by filing up the blanks which reveals that the Trial Court has not applied its judicial mind and in a very cursory manner the Trial Court took cognizance. In reference to this learned counsel for the applicants placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Sunil Bharti Mittal vs. Central Bureau of Investigation , AIR 2015 Supreme Court 923 , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that while taking cognizance on the charge sheet the Magistrate should apply its judicial mind after examining entire materials including case diary.

6. In support of the argument that the summoning order was issued in printed proforma by filling up the blanks learned counsel for the applicants placed reliance in one of the judgment rendered by the Allahabad High Court in the case of Vishnu Kumar Gupta & anr. Vs. State of U.P. and anr., 2020 SCC OnLine 1363 and particularly he referred paras 17, 18 and 19 which are being reproduced herein below:

“17. In the case of Harishchandra Prasad Mani and others (supra), it was held in para 12 that it is well settled by a series of decisions of this Court that cognizance cannot be taken unless there is at least some material indicating the guilt of the accused vide R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866: (1960) 3 SCR 388: 1960 Cri LJ 1239, State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426, Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary (1992) 4 SCC 305: 1993 SCC (Cri) 36, Raghubir Saran (Dr.) v. State of Bihar AIR 1964 SC 1:(1964) 2 SCR 336:(1964) 1 CRi LJ 1, State of Karnataka v. M Devendrappa (2002) 3 SCC 89: 2002 SCC (Cri) 539 and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque (2005) 1 SCC 122: 2005 SCC (Cri) 283.

18. This type of order has already been held unsustainable by this Court in the case of Ankit (supra) relying on in a number of decisions of the Apex Court. The relevant portion of the said decision, is extracted below:"Although as held by this Court in the case of Megh Nath Guptas & Anr V State of U.P. And Anr, 2008 (62) ACC 826, in which reference has been made to the cases of Deputy Chief Controller Import and Export Vs Roshan Lal Agarwal, 2003 (4^) ACC 686 (SC), UP Pollution Control Board Vs Mohan Meakins, 2000 (2) JIC 159 (SC): AIR 2000 SC 1456 and Kanti Bhadra Vs State of West Bengal, 2000 (1) JIC 751 (SC): 2000 (40) ACC 441 (SC), the Magistrate is not required to pass detailed reasoned order at the time of