1

Reserved on 03.03.2022

Delivered on 22.07.2022

In Chamber

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 23779 of 2021

Applicant :- Narayan Shankar

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

Counsel for Applicant :- Monika Pal,Yash Pratap Singh

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and

perused the material available on record.

By means of this application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, (in short 'the Cr.P.C.')' order dated 11.09.2020 (annexure no.3)

passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar in Criminal

Case No. 14692 of 2020 has been sought to be quashed. By the impugned

order, cognizance has been taken on the charge sheet in case crime No.

1137 of 2019 of Police Station Chakeri, District Kanpur Nagar.

It is inter-alia submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the

learned Magistrate did not apply his judicial mind at the time of taking

cognizance on the charge-sheet and impugned order of taking cognizance

has been passed on printed proforma, blanks whereof are filled by hand

that too not in the hand writing of Presiding Officer, which is not

permissible in law. In support of his submission, attention of the Court has

been drawn to the judgement in Ankit vs. State of U.P. and

another, 2009 (3) U.P. Crl. Rulings 427.

Certified copy of the order of taking cognizance is paper No. 27, which

shows that the said order has been passed on the printed proforma by

filing up the blanks. The blanks on the printed proforma appear to have

been filled by court employee and the learned Magistrate thereafter put

his initial, which shows non-application of judicial mind in passing the

2

said order. It is very unfortunate that judicial order of taking cognizance

has been passed by the learned Magistrate by filling up blanks on printed

proforma. This type of order has been held illegal by this Court in Ankit

case (supra). Hence the impugned order is liable to be quashed on this

ground alone.

The learned AGA has submitted that in view of the law laid down in

Ankit case (supra), after setting aside the impugned order, direction be

issued to the Magistrate concerned to pass fresh order on the charge sheet.

I find force in this submission.

Recently this Court in Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 39805 of

2017, Manoj Tiwari and 2 others versus State of U.P. and

another, decided on 11.02.2018, recorded its anguish, directed the

Court taking cognizance to pass fresh speaking and reasoned cognizance

order after applying his judicial mind, in a number of cases this Court set

aside the cognizance order being cryptic and proforma order or the order

without application of mind.

Judicial Officer passing such type of order not only compelled the

accused persons to approach before this Court but also send message of

his incompetence in the society. Passing cognizance order in such manner

erodes the public faith in judicial system. Passing of order in such a

manner must be deprecated but daily it is being seen that Officer, despite

having notice the order of this Court, is not ready to improve in passing

detailed or reasoned cognizance order.

Consequently, the application under section 482 Cr.P. C. is allowed. The

Cognizance order dated 11.09.2020 passed by the Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar in Criminal Case No. 14692 of 2020 arising out

of Case Crime No. 1137 of 2019, Police Station Chakeri, District Kanpur

Nagar is quashed.

3

Learned Magistrate is directed to pass a fresh cognizance order within a

period of two months from the date, when order is brought to his notice,

after applying its judicial mind.

Office to communicate this order to the lower Court concerned through

District Judge concerned and District Judge is also directed to have an

effective administrative control over the officer who is passing the order

in such manner and if again and again this type of