The order of taking cognizance of offences and charge-sheet on a printed proforma without the application of judicial mind is illegal and liable to be quashed.

JUDGMENT :

Mohd. Aslam, J.

1. This criminal appeal is preferred under Section 14-A (1) of SC/ST Act for quashing the further proceedings of Special Session Trial No. 419 of 2019 (State vs. Jai Prakash and another), arising out of Case Crime No. 96 of 2017, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 427 of I.P.C. and Section 3 (1) (Da) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Ramkola, District- Kushinagar, pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, SC/ST (PA) Act, Kushinagar at Padrauna as well as the summoning order dated 16.10.2019.

2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal is that opposite party no.2 has lodged the first information report on the basis of written complaint on 13.04.2019 at 23:21 P.M. against five named and one unknown accused persons including the appellant with the allegation that on 13.04.2019 at about 7:30 P.M. accused persons had snatched the key of his motorcycle due to old trivial issue using caste indicating words like Khattik, Chamaria abused him with filthy language and had also beaten him with fists, kicks, lathi, danda and damaged his motorcycle. The accused had also snatched the mobile of his companion Aditya Govind Rao. The informant has sustained multiple injuries on his body and got his injuries medically examined at Government Hospital Ramkola and keeping in view the seriousness of the injuries the doctor has referred him to the District Hospital.

3. The injured/informant Rajkumar Maurya was medically examined on 13.04.2019 at 8 P.M. at CHC Ramkola wherein six injuries were found on the body of the injured. The injury nos.1 and 3 were kept under observation and referred to CHC, Kushinagar for expert opinion. Rest injuries were found simple in nature. Duration of the injuries was found fresh. The investigation of the case was conducted by Circle Officer Naveen Kumar Nayak who recorded the statement of witnesses, visited the place of occurrence and prepared the site-plan. After completion of investigation, he has submitted the charge-sheet against accusedappellant Jai Prakash Verma and Sunil Verma under Sections 323, 504, 506, 427 I.P.C. and Section 3 (1) (Da) of SC/ST Act.

4. Heard learned counsel for the accused-appellant, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the Staterespondent and perused the record.

5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the accused-appellant that the impugned order dated 16.10.2019, by which cognizance of offence was taken by the court below, is illegal, arbitrary and is based on surmises and conjectures. It is further submitted that some dispute has taken place between the informant and accused-appellant and the informant has abused the appellant and only on mere asking not to abuse the first information report has been lodged against the appellant and other accused persons on the basis of false and concocted story. The accused-appellant neither has abused the opposite party no.2 using cast indicating words nor has beaten him as alleged in the first information report. In fact, on the day of incident the informant was drunken and fell down near the shop of accused-appellant on account of which he has sustained injuries. It is also submitted that the cognizance order on the charge-sheet was passed merely by filling up the printed proforma. Learned court below has not applied its mind before taking cognizance of the offence, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set-aside.

6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the submissions of learned counsel for the accused-appellant and supported the order of lower court, but he could not dispute that the impugned order of taking cognizance is passed merely by filling up the blanks in the proforma.

7. After service of notice, opposite party no.2 has put in appearance and has filed counter affidavit contending therein that learned lower court has passed the impugned order according to law. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has further submitted that merely because the