Court No. - 72
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 7193 of 2019 Petitioner :- Nirmala Devi Verma And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rahul Dubey,Suraj Bali Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.
State.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned AGA for the The present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution has been filed for quashing the summoning orders dated 15.11.2018, 2.4.2019 and 2.4.2019 passed in Complaint Case Nos. 420 of 2018 (Mohit Soni Vs. Purushottam Mishra), Complaint Case No. 17 of 2019 (Nirmala Devi Verma Vs. Purushottam Mishra) and Complaint Case No. 958 of 2018 (Nirmala Devi Varma Vs. Janardan Singh) respectively, all are pending before the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi.
Record reflects that all the three complaints under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act were filed against the petitioners herein alleging dishonouring of cheques on the ground of insufficiency of fund.
While assailing the impugned summoning order, contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Magistrate has not applied judicial mind in passing the summoning orders as the orders have been made on a printed proforma, in which the name of the accused has been filled up by hand.
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 petitioners 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.
Learned AGA 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.
I have considered the arguments so advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. and also perused the record.
The certified copy of the orders summoning the accused have been appended as annexure-2 and 3 of the paper book. From a perusal of the above orders, 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 Magistrate namely Sri Manoj Kumar Tiwari, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Jhansi has thereafter just put his initial, which leads to the conclusion that the Magistrate has passed the order in a mechanical manner without application of judicial mind.
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 petitioners 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:
" 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) 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.
In view of what has been stated above, the present petition is allowed. The orders impugned dated 15.11.2018, 2.4.2019 and 2.4.2019 passed in Complaint Case Nos. 420 of 2018 (Mohit Soni Vs. Purushottam Mishra), Complaint Case No. 17 of 2019 (Nirmala Devi Verma Vs. Purushottam Mishra) and Complaint Case No. 958 of 2018 (Nirmala Devi Varma Vs. Janardan Singh) respectively by Sri Manoj Kumar Tiwari, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Jhansi are hereby quashed. The Magistrate is directed to pass fresh separate orders after applying the judicial mind in all the complaint cases.
Order Date :- 30.9.2019 Noman