Relying upon the decision of this Court in Ankit v. State of U.P. and another, JIC

Judgment

1. Sri Farid Ahmad, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Abhishek Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State are present.

2. The present application under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicants to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 7759 of 2024 (State Vs. Ruksana and

others), arising out of case crime No. 54 of 2024, under Sections 323, 504 of I.P.C., Police Station Fatehpur, District Saharanpur as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 24.6.2024, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Saharanpur.

3. Learned counsel the applicants submits cognizance/summoning order dated 24.6.2024 has been passed against the applicants and the magistrate took cognizance as a police case, which is against the provision of Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the offence punishable under Sections 323, 504 of I.P.C. is non-cognizable offence and as per provision of Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C. the case could not be a State case and it has been proceeded as a State case, the cognizance/ summoning order is an abuse of the process of law.

5. Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C. is reproduced herein below: (d)"complaint" means any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this Code, that some person, whether known or unknown, has committed an offence, but does not include a police report. 2 Explanation.-A report made by a police officer in a case which discloses, after investigation, the commission of a non-cognizable offence shall be deemed to be a complaint, and the police officer by whom such report is made shall be deemed to be the complainant;

6. A bare perusal of explanation added to Section 2(d) shows that this explanation speaks about cases where police has investigated a case but investigation made discloses a non-cognizable offence. Such report shall be deemed to be a complaint.

7. While assailing the impugned order, contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that learned Magistrate has not applied judicial mind in passing the order as the order has been made on a printed proforma, in which the name of the accused, case crime number and Section has been filled up by hand.

8. Relying upon the decision of this Court in Ankit Vs. State of U.P. and another, JIC 2010 (1) 432, submission of the learned counsel for the applicants is that the order impugned being on a printed proforma is clearly without application of judicial mind and hence, is liable to be quashed on this ground alone.

9. Learned A.G.A. has also admitted that the order impugned has been passed on the printed proforma and therefore, keeping in view the decision in the case of Ankit (supra), the Magistrate concerned may be directed to pass a fresh order.

10. I have considered the arguments so advanced by learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. and also perused the record.

11. The certified copy of the order summoning the accused has been appended as Annexure-11 at page-97 of the paper book. From a perusal of the above order, it is evident that it is a typed proforma where only information of case number, name of parties, section, date and next date is to be filled by Magistrate in handwriting. It appears that the blanks in the printed proforma have been filled up by some court employee and the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Saharanpur has thereafter just put his initial, which leads to the conclusion that the Magistrate has 3 passed the order in a mechanical manner without application of judicial mind.

12. Despite there being a series of decisions of the Apex Court and this Court disapproving such practice of passing orders on printed proforma by the judicial officers, it is very painful and unfortunate to see that applicants in the present case has been summoned by the Magistrate by an order in which blanks have been filled in on a printed proforma without applying judicial mind. 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: "8. … 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 taking cognizance on the charge sheet, but it does not mean that order of taking cognizance can be passed by filling up the blanks on printed proforma. At the time of passing any judicial order including the order taking cognizance on the charge sheet, the Court is required to apply judicial mind and even the order of taking cognizance cannot be passed in mechanical manner. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and the matter has to be sent back to the Court below for passing fresh order on the charge sheet after applying judicial mind."

13. In view of the above, the conduct of the judicial officers concerned in passing orders on printed proforma by filling up the blanks without application of judicial mind is objectionable and deserves to be deprecated. The summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter and the order must reflect that Magistrate had applied his mind to the facts as well as law applicable thereto.

14. In view of what has been stated above, the present application is allowed. The order impugned dated 24.6.2024 passed by Additional Chief 4 Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Saharanpur is, hereby, quashed. The Magistrate is directed to pass fresh order after applying the judicial mind. Order Date :- 15.5.2025 T. Sinha

others), arising out of case crime No. 54 of 2024, under Sections 323, 504 of I.P.C., Police Station Fatehpur, District Saharanpur as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 24.6.2024, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Saharanpur.

3. Learned counsel the applicants submits cognizance/summoning order dated 24.6.2024 has been passed against the applicants and the magistrate took cognizance as a police case, which is against the provision of Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the offence punishable under Sections 323, 504 of I.P.C. is non-cognizable offence and as per provision of Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C. the case could not be a State case and it has been proceeded as a State case, the cognizance/ summoning order is an abuse of the process of law.

5. Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C. is reproduced herein below: (d)"complaint" means any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this Code, that some person, whether known or unknown, has committed an offence, but does not include a police report. 2 Explanation.-A report made by a police officer in a case which discloses, after investigation, the commission of a non-cognizable offence shall be deemed to be a complaint, and the police officer by whom such report is made shall be deemed to be the complainant;

6. A bare perusal of explanation added to Section 2(d) shows that this explanation speaks about cases where police has investigated a case but investigation made discloses a non-cognizable offence. Such report shall be deemed to be a complaint.

7. While assailing the impugned order, contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that learned Magistrate has not applied judicial mind in passing the order as the order has been made on a printed proforma, in which the name of the accused, case crime number and Section has been filled up by hand.

8. Relying upon the decision of this Court in Ankit Vs. State of U.P. and another, JIC 2010 (1) 432, submission of the learned counsel for the applicants is that the order impugned being on a printed proforma is clearly without application of judicial mind and hence, is liable to be quashed on this ground alone.

9. Learned A.G.A. has also admitted that the order impugned has been passed on the printed proforma and therefore, keeping in view the decision in the case of Ankit (supra), the Magistrate concerned may be directed to pass a fresh order.

10. I have considered the arguments so advanced by learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. and also perused the record.

11. The certified copy of the order summoning the accused has been appended as Annexure-11 at page-97 of the paper book. From a perusal of the above order, it is evident that it is a typed proforma where only information of case number, name of parties, section, date and next date is to be filled by Magistrate in handwriting. It appears that the blanks in the printed proforma have been filled up by some court employee and the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Saharanpur has thereafter just put his initial, which leads to the conclusion that the Magistrate has 3 passed the order in a mechanical manner without application of judicial mind.

12. Despite there being a series of decisions of the Apex Court and this Court disapproving such practice of passing orders on printed proforma by the judicial officers, it is very painful and unfortunate to see that applicants in the present case has been summoned by the Magistrate by an order in which blanks have been filled in on a printed proforma without applying judicial mind. 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: "8. … 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 taking cognizance on the charge sheet, but it does not mean that order of taking cognizance can be passed by filling up the blanks on printed proforma. At the time of passing any judicial order including the order taking cognizance on the charge sheet, the Court is required to apply judicial mind and even the order of taking cognizance cannot be passed in mechanical manner. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and the matter has to be sent back to the Court below for passing fresh order on the charge sheet after applying judicial mind."

13. In view of the above, the conduct of the judicial officers concerned in passing orders on printed proforma by filling up the blanks without application of judicial mind is objectionable and deserves to be deprecated. The summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter and the order must reflect that Magistrate had applied his mind to the facts as well as law applicable thereto.

14. In view of what has been stated above, the present application is allowed. The order impugned dated 24.6.2024 passed by Additional Chief 4 Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Saharanpur is, hereby, quashed. The Magistrate is directed to pass fresh order after applying the judicial mind. Order Date :- 15.5.2025 T. Sinha