Advocates:
['ADARSH BHUSHAN', '', 'SUSHANT', 'G A', '', 'ASHOK KUMAR NIGAM', 'SATYENDRA NARAYAN SINGH']

Court No. - 88

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13948 of 2020

Applicant :- Ram Chandra Yadav @ Ram Chandra And 10 Ors

Opposite Party :- State Of Up And 2 Ors

Counsel for Applicant :- Adarsh Bhushan,Sushant

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ashok Kumar

Nigam,Satyendra Narayan Singh

Hon'ble Ajai Tyagi,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned

A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants

for quashing the summoning order dated 30.07.2020 and entire

criminal proceedings in the Criminal Case No.486 of 2020

(State Vs. Ram Chandra Yadav and others) under Sections 147,

148, 452, 323, 316, 504, 506, 325 IPC arising out of Case

Crime No.113 of 2020, Police Station- Mariahu, District-

Jaunpur pending before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I,

Court No.12, Jaunpur.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that

impugned cognizance/summoning order has been passed on a

printed proforma by filling the blanks and it has been passed

without application of judicial mind and as such, it is not

sustainable in the eye of law. Learned counsel for the applicants

has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of

Ankit Vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in 2009(9) ADJ

page 778.

On the basis of aforesaid judgment, it has been submitted by

learned counsel for the applicants that summoning of accused in

criminal case is a serious matter and the order impugned

reflects that the Magistrate had not applied its judicial mind, as

in the present case the impugned cognizance/summoning order

has been passed on printed proforma, which clearly indicates

that the same has been passed without applying judicial mind

and the learned Magistrate only put its signature at the bottom

of order.

On the other hand, learned AGA has submitted that summoning

order has been passed by the learned Magistrate after

considering the material which are available on record, but he

could not dispute the fact that the order taking cognizance has

been passed on the printed proforma.

In the case of Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of

Investigation, AIR 2015 SC 923, the Hon,ble Apex Court was

pleased to observe in paragraph no.47 of the judgment as under:

"47. However, the words "sufficient grounds for proceeding" appearing in

the Section are of immense importance. It is these words which amply

suggest that an opinion is to be formed only after due application of mind

that there is sufficient basis for proceeding against the said accused and

formation of such an opinion is to be stated in the order itself.."

In the case of Darshan Singh Ram Kishan v. State of

Maharashtra , (1971) 2 SCC 654, the Hon'ble Court was

pleased to observe that the process of taking cognizance does

not involve any formal action, but it occurs as soon as the

Magistrate applies his mind to the allegations and, thereafter,

takes judicial notice of the offence. As provided by Section 190

of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a Magistrate may take

cognizance of an offence either, (a) upon receiving a complaint,

or (b) upon a police report, or (c) upon information received

from a person other than a police officer or even upon his own

information or suspicion that such an offence has been

committed. As has often been held, taking cognizance does not

involve any formal action or indeed action of any kind but

occurs as soon as a Magistrate applies his mind to the suspected

commission of an offence. Cognizance, therefore, takes place at

a point when a Magistrate first takes judicial notice of an

offence. This is the position whether the Magistrate takes

cognizance of an offence on a complaint, or on a police report,

or upon information of a person other than a police officer.

Therefore, when a Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence

upon a police report, prima facie he does so of the offence or

offences disclosed in such r