Ankit and Another v. State Of Uttarakhand and Another

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 1 2015 by implicating the applicants with the allegation that the applicants alongwith two other were trying to 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. 2

6. In support of the argument 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 taking cognizance on the charge sheet, but it does not mean that order of taking cognizance 3 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 judicial charge mind."(Emphasis supplied) applying

19. 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.”

7. I have gone through with both the orders and admittedly in the present case the summoning order have been passed in the printed proforma which itself reveals that the Trial Court without applying judicial mind took cognizance and summoned the present applicants. The Trial Court should keep in mind that the summoning of a person in a criminal case is a serious matter and the order must reflect that the Magistrate applied its judicial mind which is not reflected from the order

8. Learned Deputy Advocate General for the State fairly submits that while taking cognizance in criminal matter, the Magistrate should apply its judicial mind and in the present case the Magistrate while taking cognizance on the charge sheet has not applied its 4 judicial mind. He also submits that the matter may be remanded back to the Trial Court to decide afresh within stipulated period.

9. After hearing arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, and further in the light of the judgments as relied by the learned counsel for the applicants, it is explicitly clear that summoning order passed by the Trial Court is cryptic. The Trial Court failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested to it.

10. Accordingly, C482 application succeeds and is allowed. The cognizance/summoning order is hereby quashed qua the applicants. The Trial Court is directed to exercise discretionary power and decide afresh while taking cognizance on the charge sheet after taking into consideration the entire materials and pass appropriate order in accordance with law within three weeks from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order. ( A LOK M A H RA , J.) Dat ed: 26.06.2025 BS BALWANT SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=fbbd191c8bdb8b16e8ca7937deaf72a17c02fe2eacb f28cdf4ba7ce8640c5820, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=04E141DF4614F9A4D5F48346EB553DE5185F 418755DC00A7A13C14A680C3FA90, cn=BALWANT SINGH 5