Court No. - 81
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17592 of 2021 Applicant :- Smt. Aneeta @ Vineeta @ Vineeta And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rohit Nandan Pandey,Dinesh Singh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Naveen Srivastava,J.
Heard learned counsel for applicants and learned AGA for the State.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 24.3.2021 and summoning order dated 12.7.2021 passed by C.J.M., Mainpuri as well as entire proceedings of Case No.1200 of 2021 (State Vs. Raghunandan and others), arising out of Case Crime No.11 of 2021, under Sections 147, 308, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Kurawali, District Mainpuri.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that summoning/cognizance order dated 12.7.2021 passed by C.J.M., Mainpuri in Case No.1200 of 2021 (State Vs. Raghunandan and others), arising out of Case Crime No.11 of 2021, under Sections 147, 308, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Kurawali, District Mainpuri is on a printed proforma and reveals non-application of mind while taking cognizance of the offence. He places reliance on the decision of this Court in Application U/S 438 No. 5525 of 2020 and 13883 of 2020 and prays for quashing of the cognizance order.
It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mainpuri did not apply his judicial mind at the time of passing the cognizance order against the applicants as the impugned cognizance order has been passed on a printed proforma, which is not permissible under law. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicants has relied upon the judgment in the case of Ankit Vs. State of U.P. & Another; 2009 (9) ADJ 778.
Certified copy of the impugned cognizance order is annexed as Annexure-5 to the affidavit which goes to show that the order has been passed on a printed proforma by filling up the blanks. Blanks on the printed proforma appear to have been filled by the court employee. learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mainpuri has simply put his initial over his name without applying his judicial mind before passing the said order.
The argument advanced on behalf of applicants has substance. The use of blanks printed proforma in passing the judicial order is not proper and the order of cognizance the applicants has been passed without application of judicial mind.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, stated above and the law laid down in case of Ankit Vs. State of U.P. & Another (supra), the impugned cognizance order dated 12.7.2021, is hereby quashed. Learned court below is directed to pass a fresh order on the complaint after applying his judicial mind.
In above terms, application is disposed off. Order Date :- 29.10.2021 Mini