In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has quashed a cognizance order passed by a magistrate on a printed proforma without application of judicial mind. The court held that such mechanical passing of orders is objectionable and against settled judicial norms.
Background:
The case arose from an NCR (Non-Cognizable Report) filed against the applicants under Sections 193/195 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Gonda. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate 1st, Gonda took cognizance on November 20, 2015 and summoned the applicants on January 3, 2017. The applicants challenged these orders before the High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Key Legal Issues:
1. Whether a magistrate can pass cognizance/summoning orders on printed proforma without application of judicial mind
2. Scope of judicial scrutiny required while taking cognizance on a police report
Court’s Observations and Ruling:
Justice Shamim Ahmed noted that the impugned orders were passed in a “mechanical manner without application of judicial mind and without satisfying himself as to which offence were prima-facie being made out against the applicants.”
The court observed: “Judicial orders cannot be allowed to be passed in a mechanical manner either by filling in blank on a printed proforma or by affixing a ready made seal etc. of the order on a plain paper. Such tendency must be deprecated and cannot be allowed to perpetuate.”
Citing several precedents, including Ankit vs State of U.P. (2009), the court held that summoning an accused is a serious matter requiring application of judicial mind to facts and applicable law.
The judge ruled: “The impugned cognizance/summoning order dated 20.11.2015/03.01.2017 cannot be legally sustained, as the Magistrate concerned failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him resulting in miscarriage of justice.”
Accordingly, the court quashed the impugned orders and remitted the matter back to the magistrate for fresh consideration within two months, directing him to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
Also Read
Case Details:
Application U/S 482 No. – 3047 of 2017
Bench: Justice Shamim Ahmed
Applicants: Muralidhar Tiwari and Others
Opposite Party: The State of U.P. and Another
Decided on: May 13, 2024
Lawyers: Ayodhya Prasad Mishra (for applicants), Rajeev Kumar Verma (for State)
