The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has quashed a summoning order passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Kannauj, observing that the order was passed on a printed proforma in a mechanical manner without the application of judicial mind. Justice Madan Pal Singh, while allowing the appeal, emphasized that the summoning of an accused is a “serious matter” and judicial orders must reflect a consideration of both facts and law.
Background of the Case
The matter arose from a criminal appeal filed under Section 14A(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The appellants, Raja @ Mohd Alam and another, challenged the charge-sheet dated May 22, 2022, and the subsequent cognizance/summoning order dated November 23, 2022. The proceedings were part of Session Case No. 963 of 2022 (State Vs. Raja & Others), involving Sections 323, 504, and 506 of the I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(da) of the SC/ST Act, arising out of Case Crime No. 108 of 2022.
Arguments of the Parties
Counsel for the appellants, Mr. Sarvesh Kumar Dubey, contended that the Special Judge failed to apply judicial mind as the impugned order was made on a “printed proforma” where details like the names of the accused, case crime number, and legal sections were filled in by hand. Relying on the precedent set in Ankit vs. State of U.P. and another (JIC 2010 (1) 432), the counsel argued that such orders are unsustainable and liable to be quashed on this ground alone.
The learned A.G.A. appearing for the State opposed the prayer but admitted that the impugned order had indeed been passed on a printed proforma.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
Upon perusing the certified copy of the summoning order, the Court found it to be a “typed proforma in which the blanks have been filled in by the Special Judge in handwriting.” The Court noted that this led to the conclusion that the order was passed in a mechanical manner.
The Court referred extensively to the coordinate Bench decision in Ankit vs. State of U.P., which castigated the practice of “fill-in-the-blanks” judicial orders. The Court reiterated:
“This method of passing judicial order is wholly illegal. If for the sake of argument it is assumed that the blanks on the printed proforma were filled up in the handwriting of the learned magistrate, even then the impugned order would be illegal and invalid, because an order of taking cognizance or any other judicial order cannot be passed by filling up blanks on a printed proforma.”
The High Court further noted that while a detailed reasoned order is not mandatory at the stage of taking cognizance, the court is still required to apply its judicial mind. It also highlighted that Circular Letter No. 28/Admin. ‘G-II’ (2021) and Circular No. 8159/Admin. G-II (2025) had already been issued by the High Court specifically prohibiting the use of “pre-printed rubber stamps” or “pre-typed proformas.”
Expressing dissatisfaction, the Court observed:
“Despite a series of decisions of the Apex Court and this Court disapproving such practice of passing orders on printed proforma, it is painful and unfortunate to note that the appellant in the present case has been summoned by such an order… the conduct of the judicial officers concerned in passing orders on printed proforma by filling up blanks without application of judicial mind is objectionable and deserves to be deprecated.”
The Decision
The Court allowed the appeal and quashed the cognizance/summoning order dated November 23, 2022. The Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Kannauj, was directed to pass a “fresh, well-reasoned order” after applying judicial mind to the specific facts of the case.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Raja @ Mohd Alam And Another Vs. State of U.P. and Another
- Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 8514 of 2024
- Bench: Justice Madan Pal Singh
- Date: April 24, 2026
