Summoning Order Issued on Blank Printed Proforma Is Invalid: Allahabad High Court
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 9892 of 2022
Dhanesh Kumar @ Dhanesh Kumar Mishra v. State Of U.P.
Bench: Justice Subhash Vidyarthi
Indian Penal Code
| Section 308 | Attempt to commit culpable homicide. |
| Section 323 | Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt. |
| Section 324 | Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means. |
| Section 325 | Punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt. |
| Section 506 | Punishment for criminal intimidation. |
FACTS OF THE CASE
The Allahabad High Court stated that a summoning order passed on a blank printed proforma is illegal and invalid. The application for quashing the chargesheet filed in a Case registered under sections 308,323,324,325 and 506, I.P.C., the summoning order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, and the consequential order issued by the Judicial Magistrate-II, issuing non-bailable warrants against the applicant were being handled by the bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi.
In this instance, a complaint was filed against five individuals, including the applicant, claiming that the five accused had attacked the informant and his father.
Devvrat, a co-accused, was armed with a countrymade pistol and a Farsa, while Ramesh Kumar, a co-accused, was armed with a Farsa. All of the other accused were armed with sticks.
Abhishek Mishra and Prashant Shukla, counsel for the applicant, stated that the order has been passed on a printed proforma by filling in the names of the accused, the sections, and the Case Crime Number in the blank spaces. Judicial Magistrate has passed an order summoning the accused to face the trial of Case under sections 323, 324, 325, 506 and 308 I.P.C.
The attorney cited Darshan Singh Ram Kishan v. State of Maharashtra, in which the Supreme Court ruled that “a Magistrate may take cognizance of an offence either (a) upon receiving a complaint, (b) upon a police report, or (c) upon information received from a person other than a police officer or even upon his own information or suspicion that such an offence has been committed.” Taking cognizance, as has been commonly held, occurs as soon as a Magistrate applies his mind to the suspected commission of an offense. Taking cognizance does not require any formal action at all. As a result, cognizance occurs when a Magistrate takes judicial notice of an offense for the first time. This is the situation regardless of whether the Magistrate takes cognizance of an offense based on a complaint, a police report, or information from an outside source. As a result, “prima facie he does so of the offence or offences disclosed in such report” when a Magistrate takes cognizance of an offense based on a police report.
COURT ORDER/JUDGEMENT
The High Court cited Ankit v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others. “The manner in which the impugned order has been prepared shows that the Magistrate did not at all apply his judicial mind at the time of passing this order and after the blanks were filled in by some employee of the Court, he has put his initial on the seal of the Court,” the Court ruled. This method of issuing a court order is completely against the law. Because an order of taking cognizance or any other judicial order cannot be passed by filling out blanks on the printed proforma, even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that the Magistrate filled in the blanks on the printed proforma in his or her own handwriting, the challenged order would still be illegal and invalid.
Further, The bench relied upon the case of Virendra Kumar Bajpai v. State of U.P., where it was held that “use of blank printed proforma for passing judicial order indicates non-application of judicial mind while passing a summoning order and such an order cannot be sustained in law.”
In view of the above Judgments, the High Court opined that the impugned summoning order is unsustainable in law.
In view of the above, the bench allowed the application.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY AJAY ADITHIYAA N