Court No. - 85
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11881 of 2021 Applicant :- Vaibhav Yadav And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the impugned charge-sheet dated 18.7.2020 alongwith cognizance order dated 21.1.2021 in Case No. 46 of 2021, State Vs. Vaibhav Yadav & others, arising out of Case Crime No. 244 of 2020, under section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Kurawali, District Mainpuri pending in the court of A.C.J.M. Ist, Mainpuri.
Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the allegations of demand of dowry by the O.P. No. 2 is absolutely false and concocted and has been made only to harass the applicants for ulterior motive. The story set forth and allegations made are on its face false and improbable and beyond the reach and understanding of a prudent person. No demand of dowry was made and nothing was accepted as dowry by the applicants. There is no documentary evidence to establish the prosecution case. The alleged marriage card was prepared and printed with a view to strengthen allegations of the applicants. No case under section 3/4 D.P. Act is made out from the perusal of the FIR and statements of witnesses recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. and other proposed evidence on record. Continuation of proceedings will be an abuse of process of the Court. Learned counsel also contended that the summoning order dated 21.1.2021 passed by learned A.C.J.M. is without application of judicial mind and on a printed proforma and hence, not sustainable.
Learned A.G.A. submitted that applicants-accused are named in the FIR and there are specific allegations of demand of dowry against them. They have refused to perform marriage on account of demand of dowry. After investigation on the basis of evidence collected charge-sheet has been submitted. Learned A.G.A. also contended that the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance vide order dated 21.1.2021 on the basis of material available in the case diary. The impugned order is not on printed proforma. It contains the word "cognizance taken" which is sufficient to show the application of mind.
Two prayers have been made by the learned counsel for the applicants. The first one is to quash the impugned charge-sheet dated 18.7.2020 and second one is to quash the cognizance order dated 21.1.2021. So far as the quashing of the charge- sheet is concerned, there is no sufficient ground to quash the charge-sheet as there are specific allegation of demand of dowry against the applicants-accused. After proper investigation on the basis of evidence collected during investigation the I.O. has submitted charge-sheet. The complainant and other witnesses have supported the allegations of the FIR. So it can not be said that there is no evidence or material on record on the basis of which the charge-sheet has been submitted. Remaining arguments are a matter of trial which can not be considered and adjudicated at this stage.
As regards to the legality of the summoning order it appears from the perusal of the impugned order that it is on a printed proforma. Crime number, sections, police station and name of the accused have been filled afterwords in hand-writing in the blank columns while remaining matter is typed. In a catena of decisions it has been held that 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.
In view of the settled law, the conduct of the judicial officer concerned in passing the 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.
The impugned order does not stand the test of the well settled law. Consequently, the order dated 21.1.2021 can not be legally sustained.
Accordingly, the Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. is partly allowed for the second prayer only. The impugned order of cognizance and summoning dated 21.1.2021 is hereby set- aside with a direction to the learned Magistrate to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 21.12.2021 Masarrat