# Avinash Kumar & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2021) 2 ILRA 585
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-11-20
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 16458 of 2020
- **Bench:** Shamim Ahmed
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/avinash-kumar-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-46159
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Section 504 - , Section 506 -
Intentional insult with intent to provoce
breach
of
peace
,
Section
395
-
Punishment for dacoity, Code of criminal
procedure, 1973 - Section 173 - Report of
police
officer
on
completion
of
investigation - Court can take cognizance
of
an
offence
only
when
condition
requisite for initiation of proceedings
before it as set out in Chapter XIV of the
Code are fulfilled - Otherwise, the Court
does not obtain jurisdiction to try the
offences under section 190 (1) of the
Cr.P.C.(Para -14)

First information report lodged against the
applicants - charge-sheet submitted by the
Investigating Officer under sections 504, 506
IPC - Magistrate had taken cognizance on the
charge-sheet - cognizance was taken on the
prined proforma by filling the sections of IPC,
dates and number - in the said proforma the
learned Magistrate without assigning any reason
has mentioned the sections 504, 506 and 395
IPC - summoned the applicants for facing trial.
(Para - 4,7)

HELD:- 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, whereas the
impugned summoning order was passed in
mechanical manner without application of
judicial mind. (Para - 25)

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

2 All. Avinash Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
585

9. िैसा पूवा िें उल्लेर्खत ककया गया है
कक उच्च न्यायालय को उसकी अन्ततनाहहत
शजक्तयों का उपयोग संयि व साविानी पूवाक
ह करना चाहहये। अगर प्राथमिकी व वववेचना
के दौरान एकत्र ककये गये साक्ष्य अपराि के
कृत्य को प्रथि दृष्टतया प्रकट करते है तो ऐसी
पररजस्थततयों
िें
ककसी
भी
वैिातनक
अमभयोिन को आकजस्िक िृत्यु प्रदान नह ं
की िानी चाहहए। पूवा िें ववश्वेलिण ककया
गया है कक वतािान प्रकरण िें आवेदक के
ववरुद्ि लगाये गये सभी अपरािों िें उसके
सभी कारक प्रथि दृष्टया उपलब्ि है तथा
आक्षेवपत आदेश (आरोप पत्र का संज्ञान व
आवेदक को सम्िन) अवर न्यायालय द्वारा
न्यातयक वववेक का उपयोग करते हुए
ववधिनुसार पाररत ककये गये हैं, अतः वतािान
प्रकरण िें अन्ततनाहहत शजक्तयों का उपयोग
नह ं ककया िा सकता है।

10. अतः आवेदन तनरस्त ककया िाता है।
----------
(2021)02ILR A585
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.11.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.

Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 16458 of 2020

Avinash Kumar & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties
Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Sanjay Kumar Pal, Sri Jai Prakash Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.

(A) Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Section 504 - , Section 506 -
Intentional insult with intent to provoce
breach
of
peace
,
Section
395
-
Punishment for dacoity, Code of criminal
procedure, 1973 - Section 173 - Report of
police
officer
on
completion
of
investigation - Court can take cognizance
of
an
offence
only
when
condition
requisite for initiation of proceedings
before it as set out in Chapter XIV of the
Code are fulfilled - Otherwise, the Court
does not obtain jurisdiction to try the
offences under section 190 (1) of the
Cr.P.C.(Para -14)

First information report lodged against the
applicants - charge-sheet submitted by the
Investigating Officer under sections 504, 506
IPC - Magistrate had taken cognizance on the
charge-sheet - cognizance was taken on the
prined proforma by filling the sections of IPC,
dates and number - in the said proforma the
learned Magistrate without assigning any reason
has mentioned the sections 504, 506 and 395
IPC - summoned the applicants for facing trial.
(Para - 4,7)

HELD:- 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, whereas the
impugned summoning order was passed in
mechanical manner without application of
judicial mind. (Para - 25)

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Dilawar Vs St.of Har. , (2018) 16 SCC 521
586 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
2. Menka Gandhi Vs U.O.I. , AIR 1978 SC 597

3. Hussainara Khatoon (I) Vs St.of Bihar ,
(1980)1 SCC 81

4. Abdul Rehman Antulay Vs R.S. Nayak ,
(1992) 1 SCC 225

5. P. Ramchandra Rao Vs St.of Karn. , (2002) 4
SCC 578

6. H.N. Rishbud Vs St.of Delhi , AIR 1955 SC 196

7. Basaruddin & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & ors. ,
2011 (1) JIC 335 (All)(LB)

8. Bhushan Kumar & anr. Vs St. (NCT of Delhi)
& anr.. , AIR 2012 SC 1747

9. Sunil Bharti Mittal Vs C.B.I., AIR 2015 SC 923

10. Darshan Singh Ram Kishan Vs St. of Mah.,
(1971) 2 SCC 654

11. Ankit Vs St. of U.P. & anr. passed in
Application U/S 482 No.19647 of 2009

12. Megh Nath Guptas & anr. V St. of U.P. &
anr., 2008 (62) ACC 826,

13. Deputy Chief Controller Import & Export Vs
Roshan Lal Agarwal, 2003 (4) ACC 686 (SC),

14. UP Pollution Control Board Vs Mohan
Meakins , 2000 (2) JIC 159 (SC): AIR 2000 SC
1456 &

15. Kanti Bhadra Vs St. of W.B. , 2000 (1) JIC
751 (SC): 2000 (40) ACC 441 (SC)

16. Kavi Ahmad Vs St. of U.P. & anr.r passed in
Criminal Revision No. 3209 of 2010

17. Abdul Rasheed & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & anr. ,
2010 (3) JIC 761 (All)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed, J.)

1. Heard Sri Jai Prakash Singh,
learned counsel for the applicants and
learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. This application under Section 482
Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking for quashing
of the charge sheet dated 4.09.2018
submitted in Case Crime No.70 of 2018,
under Section 504, 506 IPC, Police Station
Bhelupur, District Varanasi as well as
cognizance order dated 29.04.2019 passed
by A.C.J.M.-3, Varanasi in Misc. Case
No.361 of 2019 (case crime no.70 of 2018),
under section 504, 506, 395 IPC, Police
Station Bhelupur, District Varanasi.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants
submits that the opposite party no.2 has
moved an application under section 156(3)
Cr.P.C. against the applicant no.1 and six
other unknown persons regarding the
alleged incident dated 28.10.2017.

4. On the basis of application u/s
156(3) Cr.P.C. filed by opposite party no.2,
the first information report was lodged
against the applicants on 4.02.2018, which
was being registered as case crime No.70
of 2018, under section 504, 506, 395 IPC,
Police Station Bhelupur, District Varanasi.

5. As per prosecution version as
alleged in the F.I.R, the informant was
doing his business at shop No.201 known
as Puja Enterprises, which is a Proprietor
Firm situated at Smirit State Dharmsangh
Durgakund, Varanasi. The applicants were
demanding illegally gratification from the
informant
through
different
mobile
numbers and they claimed themselves as
members of some Mafia Gang. On
28.10.2017 at 1.30 hrs., the applicants
along with six unknown persons entered in
the office of the informant/ opposite party
no.2 and started abusing him and their two
companion caught hold the hand of the
informant and snatched Rs.7,500/- in cash
and
golden
chain
by
putting
the
2 All. Avinash Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
587
countrymade pistol on the head of the
informant.

6. Learned counsel for the applicants
further submits that the entire prosecution
story is false, no such incident took place
and applicants have been falsely implicated
in this case.

7. Learned counsel for the applicants
thereafter submits that before arguing the
case on merits, he wants to draw the
attention of the Court on the charge-sheet
submitted by the Investigating Officer and
submitted that the Investigating Officer had
submitted the charge-sheet against the
applicants, under sections 504, 506 IPC on
4.09.2018, copy of the same is filed as
Annexure No.5 to the affidavit, whereas he
further submits that on the charge-sheet, the
learned Magistrate had taken cognizance on
29.04.2019 and the case was numbered as
Misc.
Case
No.361
of
2019.
The
cognizance was taken on the prined
proforma by filling the sections of IPC,
dates and number and in the said proforma
the learned Magistrate without assigning
any reason has mentioned the sections 504,
506 and 395 IPC and summoned the
applicants for facing trial. Copy of the
same is annexed as Annexure No.6 to the
affidavit.

8. Learned counsel for the applicants
further submits that by the order dated
29.04.2019 cognizance taken by the learned
Magistrae on printed proforma under
sections 504, 506 and 395 IPC, without
assignign any reason is abused of process
of law. No reason has been given by the
learned Magistrate why the cognizance has
been taken under sections 504, 506 and 395
IPC, whereas the Investigating Officer has
submitted the charge sheet only under
sections 504, 506 IPC.

9. Learned counsel for the applicants
further submits that after submission of
charge sheet the applicants have been
summoned mechanically by order dated
29.04.2019 and the court below while
summoning the applicants has materially
erred and did not follow the dictum of law
as propounded by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in various cases that summoning in
criminal case is a serious matter and the
court below without dwelling into material
and visualizing the case on the touch stone
of probability should not summon accused
person to face criminal trial. It is further
submitted that the court below has not
taken into consideration the material placed
before the trial court along with charge
sheet and, therefore, the trial court has
materially
erred
in
summoning
the
applicants. The court below has summoned
the applicants through a printed order,
which is wholly illegal.

10. It is vehemently urged by learned
counsel
for
the
applicants
that
the
impugned
summoning
order
dated
29.04.2019 is not sustainable in the eye of
law, as the same has been passed in
mechanical manner without applying the
judicial mind, because on the face of record
itself
it
is
apparent
that
impugned
summoning order dated 29.04.2019 has
been passed by the Magistrate concerned
on printed proforma by filling up the gaps,
therefore the same is liable to be quashed
by this Court.

11. Learned counsel for the applicant
has given much emphasis that if the
cognizance has been taken on the printed
proforma, the same is not sustainable.

12. Per contra, learned AGA for the
State
submitted
that
considering
the
material evidences and allegations against
588 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the applicant on record, as on date, as per
prosecution case, the cognizable offence
against the applicants is made out,
therefore, application is liable to be
dismissed but has not denied that the leaned
Magistrate has taken cognizance on the
printed proforma. This case is being finally
decided at this stage without issuing notice
to opposite party no.2 and without calling
for a counter affidavit.

13. I have heard the learned counsel
for the parties and perused the record.

14. The main issue for consideration
before this Court is that whether the learned
Magistrate may summon the accused
person on a printed proforma without
assigning any reason and take cognizance
on police report filed under Sections 173 of
Cr.P.C. In this regard, it is relevant to
mention here that a Court can take
cognizance of an offence only when
condition
requisite
for
initiation
of
proceedings before it as set out in Chapter
XIV of the Code are fulfilled. Otherwise,
the Court does not obtain jurisdiction to try
the offences under section 190 (1) of the
Cr.P.C. provided that "subject to the
provisions of this Chapter, any Magistrate
of the first class, and any Magistrate of the
second class specially empowered in this
behalf under sub-section (2), may take
cognizance of any offence-

(a) upon receiving a complaint of
facts which constitute such offence,

(b) upon a police report of such
facts;

(c) upon information received
from any person other than a police officer,
or upon his own knowledge, that such
offence has been committed.

(2) The Chief Judicial Magistrate
may empower any Magistrate of the second
class to take cognizance under sub-section
(1) of such offences as are within his
competence to inquire into or try."

15. At this juncture, it is fruitful to
have a look so far as the law pertaining to
summoning of the accused persons, by
taking cognizance on a police report filed
under section 173 of the Cr.P.C., is
concerned and the perusal of the case law
mentioned herein below would clearly
reveal that cognizance of an offence on
complaint is taken for the purpose of
issuing process to the accused. Since, it is a
process of taking judicial notice of certain
facts which constitute an offence, there has
to be application of mind as to whether the
material collected by the Investigating
Officer results in sufficient grounds to
proceed further and would constitute
violation of law so as to call a person to
appear before the criminal court to face
trial. This discretion puts a responsibility
on the magistrate concerned to act
judiciously keeping in view the facts of the
particular case as well as the law on the
subject and the orders of Magistrate does
not suffers from non-application of judicial
mind while taking cognizance of the
offence.

16. Fair and proper investigation is
the primay duty of the Investigating
Officer. No investigating agency can take
unduly
long
time
in
completing
investigation. There is implicit right under
Article 21 for speedy trial which in turn
encompasses speedy investigation, inquiry,
appeal, revision and retrial. There is clear
need
for
time
line
in
completing
investigation for having in-house oversight
mechanism wherein accountability for
adhering to lay down timeline, can be fixed
at different levels in the hierarchy, vide
Dilawar vs. State of Haryana, (2018) 16
2 All. Avinash Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
589
SCC 521, Menka Gandhi vs. Union of
India, AIR 1978 SC 597, Hussainara
Khatoon (I) vs. State of Bihar, (1980)1
SCC 81, Abdul Rehman Antulay vs. R.S.
Nayak, (1992) 1 SCC 225 and P.
Ramchandra Rao vs. State of Karnatka,
(2002) 4 SCC 578.

17. For the purposes of investigation,
offences are divided into two categories
"cognizable" and "non-cognizable". When
information of a cognizable offence is
received or such commission is suspected, the
proper police officer has the authority to enter
in the investigation of the same but where the
information relates to a non-cognizable
offence, he shall not investigate it without the
order
of
the
competent
Magistrate.
Investigation includes all the proceedings
under the Cr.P.C. for the collection of
evidence conducted by a police officer or
by any person other than a Magistrate
(who is authorised by a Magistrate in his
behalf). Investigation consists of steps,
namely
(i)
proceeding
to
spot,
(ii)
ascertainment
of
the
facts
and
circumstances of the case, (iii) discovery
and arrest of the suspected offender, (iv)
collection of evidence relating to the
commission of the offence and (v) formation
of opinion as to whether on the material
collected therein to place the accused before a
Magistrate for trial and if so to take necessary
steps for the same by filing a chargesheet
under Section 173, Cr.P.C., vide H.N.
Rishbud vs. State of Delhi, AIR 1955 SC
196. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate has to
take cognizance after application of judicial
mind and by reasoned order and not in
mechanical manner.

18. In the case of Basaruddin &
others Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2011
(1) JIC 335 (All)(LB), the Hon'ble Court
was pleased to obserave as under:-

"From a perusal of the impugned
order,
it
appears
that
the
learned
Magistrate on the complaint filed by the
complainant has summoned the accused in
a mechanical way filling the date in the
typed proforma. Learned Magistrate while
taking cognizance of the offence on
complaint was expected to go through the
allegations made in the complaint and to
satisfy himself as to which offences were
prima facies, being made out against the
accused on basis of allegations made in the
complaint. It appears that the learned
Magistrate did not bother to go through the
allegations made in the complaint and
ascertain as to what offences were, prima
facie, being made out against the accused
on the basis of allegations made in the
complaint. Apparently, the impugned order
passed by the learned Magistrate suffers
from non-application of mind while taking
cognizance of the offence. The impugned
order is not well reasoned order, therefore,
the same is liable to be quashed and the
petition deserves to be allowed and the
matter may be remanded back to the
learned
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate,
Lakhimpur Kheri with direction to him to
go through the allegations made in the
complaint and ascertain as to what
offences against the accused were prima
facie being made out against the accused
on the basis of allegations made in the
complaint and pass fresh order, thereafter,
he will proceed according to law."

19. In the case of Bhushan Kumar
and Anr. v. State (NCT of Delhi) and
Anr., AIR 2012 SC 1747, the Hon'ble
Apex Court was pleased to observe that
section 204 of the Code does not mandate
the Magistrate to explicitly state the
reasons for issuance of summons. It clearly
states that if in the opinion of a Magistrate
taking cognizance of an offence, there is
590 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
sufficient ground for proceeding, then the
summons may be issued. This section
mandates the Magistrate to form an opinion
as to whether there exists a sufficient
ground for summons to be issued but it is
nowhere mentioned in the section that the
explicit narration of the same is mandatory,
meaning thereby that it is not a prerequisite for deciding the validity of the
summons issued.

20. In the case of Sunil Bharti Mittal
v. Central Bureau of Investigation, AIR
2015 SC 923, the Hon,ble Apex Court was
pleased to observe in paragraph no.47 of
the judgment as under:

"47.
However,
the
words
"sufficient
grounds
for
proceeding"
appearing in the Section are of immense
importance. It is these words which amply
suggest that an opinion is to be formed only
after due application of mind that there is
sufficient basis for proceeding against the
said accused and formation of such an
opinion is to be stated in the order itself.."

21. In the case of Darshan Singh
Ram Kishan v. State of Maharashtra ,
(1971) 2 SCC 654, the Hon'ble Court was
pleased to observe that the process of
taking cognizance does not involve any
formal action, but it occurs as soon as the
Magistrate
applies
his
mind
to
the
allegations and, thereafter, takes judicial
notice of the offence. As provided by
Section 190 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure,
a
Magistrate
may
take
cognizance of an offence either, (a) upon
receiving a complaint, or (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. As has often been held, taking
cognizance does not involve any formal
action or indeed action of any kind but
occurs as soon as a Magistrate applies his
mind to the suspected commission of an
offence. Cognizance, therefore, takes place
at a point when a Magistrate first takes
judicial notice of an offence. This is the
position whether the Magistrate takes
cognizance of an offence on a complaint, or
on a police report, or upon information of a
person
other
than
a
police
officer.
Therefore,
when
a
Magistrate
takes
cognizance of an offence upon a police
report, prima facie he does so of the
offence or offences disclosed in such
report."

22. In the case of Ankit Vs. State of
U.P. And another passed in Application
U/S 482 No.19647 of 2009 decided on
15.10.2009, this Court was pleased to
observe in paragraph No.8 of the judgment
as under:-

"8. In the beginning, the name of
the court, case number, state vs. ....... under
section ......... P.S. ......... District ......... case
crime No. ........ /2009 also have been
printed and blanks have been filled up by
mentioning the case number, name of the
accused, section, P.S. District etc. by some
employee. Below afore cited printed
matter, the following sentence has been
mentioned in handwriting "अलभयुक्त अंलकत
की लगिफ्तािी मा0 उच्च न्यायायि द्वािा Crl.
Writ No. 19559/08 अंलकत बनाम िाज्य में
पारित आदेश लदनांक 5.11.08 द्वािा आिोप पत्र
प्राप्त होने तक स्र्थलगत र्थी।"

Below aforesaid sentence, the
seal of the court containing name of Sri
Talevar Singh, the then Judicial MagistrateIII, has been affixed and the learned
magistrate has put his short signature
(initial) over his name. The manner in
2 All. Avinash Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
591
which the impugned order has been
prepared shows that the learned magistrate
did not at all apply his judicial mind at the
time of passing this order and after the
blanks were filled up by some employee of
the court, he has put his initial on the seal
of the court. This method of passing
judicial order is wholly illegal. If for the
shake of argument, it is assumed that the
blanks on the printed proforma were filled
up in the handwriting of learned magistrate,
even then the impugned order would be
illegal and invalid, because order of taking
cognizance of any other judicial order
cannot be passed by filling up blanks on the
printed proforma. 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."

23. In the case of Kavi Ahmad Vs.
State of U.P. and another passed in
Criminal Revision No. 3209 of 2010,
wherein order taking cognizance of offence
by the Magistrate under Section 190(1)(b)
on printed proforma without applying his
judicial mind towards the material collected
by the Investigating Officer has been held
illegal.

24. In the case of Abdul Rasheed
and others Vs. State of U.P. and another
2010 (3) JIC 761 (All). The relevant
observations and findings recorded in the
said case are quoted below:-

"6. Whenever any police report
or complaint is filed before the Magistrate,
he has to apply his mind to the facts stated
in the report or complaint before taking
cognizance. If after applying his mind to
the facts of the case, the Magistrate comes
to the conclusion that there is sufficient
material to proceed with the matter, he may
take cognizance. In the present case, the
summoning order has been passed by
affixing a ready made seal of the
summoning order on a plain paper and the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had
merely entered the next date fixed in the
case in the blank portion of the ready made
order. Apparently the learned Magistrate
had not applied his mind to the facts of the
case before passing the order dated
20.12.2018, therefore, the impugned order
cannot be upheld.

7. 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. This
reflects not only lack of application of mind
to the facts of the case but is also against
the settled judicial norms. Therefore, this
practice must be stopped forthwith."
592 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

25. 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, whereas the impugned
summoning
order
was
passed
in
mechanical manner without application of
judicial mind.

26. In light of the judgments referred
to above, it is explicitly clear that the order
dated 29.04.2019 passed by Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate-3, Varanasi is
cryptic and does not stand the test of the
law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
Consequently, the cognizance order dated
29.04.2019 cannot be legally sustained, as
the Magistrate failed to exercise the
jurisdiction vested in him resulting in
miscarriage of justice.

27. Accordingly, the present Criminal
Misc. Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C succeeds
and is allowed. The impugned cognizance
order
dated
29.04.2019
passed
by
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-3,
Varanasi in Misc. Case No.361 of 2019,
under Sections 504, 506, 395 IPC, Police
Station Bhelupur, District Varanasi is,
hereby, quashed.

28. The Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate 3, Varanasi is directed to decide
afresh the issue for taking cognizance and
summoning
the
applicants
and
pass
appropriate orders in accordance with law
keeping in view the observations made by
this Court as well as the direction contained
in the judgments referred to above within a
period of three months from the date of
production of a certified copy of this order.

29. With the above direction, the
application filed U/S 482 Cr.P.C. stands
allowed.
----------
(2021)02ILR A592
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.12.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.

Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 18120 of 2020

Bharat Singh @ Jitendra Singh ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Lakshman Singh, Sri M.K. Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.

(A) Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 107 - Security
for keeping the peace in other cases ,
Section 116 - Inquiry as to truth of
information .

Application filed for quashing the notice/order
passed by the respondent no.3, Sub Divisional
Magistrate, under section 107/116 Cr.P.C.

HELD:- It appears that the substance of
allegations against the applicant has not been
mentioned in the impugned notice issued under
Section 107/116 Cr.P.C. The said notice appears
to be vague and, hence, is liable to be quashed.
(Para - 7)

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. disposed of. (E6)

List of Cases cited:-