Ram Adhar & Anr. v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt

Maya Devi and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 300 of 2019, under Sections 498A, 323, 504 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Kotwali Dehat, District- Gonda pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate-1st, Gonda. 3-Brief facts of the case which are required to be stated are that opposite party no. 2 lodged F.I.R. on 09.09.2019 against the applicants and their other family members for the alleged offence under Sections 498A, 323, 504 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, in which after culmination of investigation, charge-sheet dated 28.12.2019 has been submitted against the applicants and other co-accused, on which the learned Magistrate took cognizance and summoned the applicants on 06.03.2021, which is the subject matter of challenge in the present application. 4-The main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicants is that learned Magistrate, without applying his judicial mind, has taken the cognizance in the matter and summoned the applicants on printed proforma, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law and liable to be quashed.

The said cognizance/summoning order is extracted hereinbelow:- 5-Learned A.G.A. has also conceded by submitting that the impugned cognizance/summoning order dated 06.03.2021 has been passed on a printed proforma by filling up the blanks, which has been prepared for summoning the accused after filing charge-sheet, hence the matter may be remanded to the concerned Judicial Magistrate with the direction to pass a fresh order. 6-Having heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, it is relevant to mention that it is well settled that before a Magistrate can be said to have taken cognizance of an offence, it is imperative that he must have taken notice of the accusations and applied his mind to the allegations made in the F.I.R. and the material filed along with charge- sheet. It needs little emphasis that it is only when the Magistrate applies his mind and is satisfied that the allegations, if proved, would constitute an offence and decides to initiate proceedings against the alleged offender, that it can be positively stated that he has taken cognizance of the offence.

7-It is very strange that 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 ofÏcers, it is very painful and unfortunate to see that applicant 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 Vs. State of U.P. and another, JIC 2010 (1) 432 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 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. " (Emphasis supplied) 8-In view of the above, the conduct of the judicial ofÏcer 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 governing the issue. 9-In view of what has been stated above, the impugned cognizance/summoning order dated 06.03.2021 is hereby quashed.