# Deepak Jha v. State of U.P. & Anr - **Citation:** Application U/S 482 No. 4487 of 2020 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2020-02-03 - **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 4487 of 2020 - **Bench:** Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/deepak-jha-v-state-of-u-p-anr-46187 - **Pages:** 3 ## Headnote Law- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138- Printed proforma - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent jurisdiction - - Magistrate not required to pass detailed reasoned order at the time of taking cognizance on the charge sheet - does not mean that order of taking cognizance can be passed by filling up the blanks on printed proforma - apply judicial mind and even the order of taking cognizance cannot be passed in mechanical manner - impugned order quashed. (Para - 9) Complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act - Magistrate after recording the statement of the complainant as well as witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. - summoned the applicant - Magistrate not applied judicial mind in passing the summoning order - order made on a printed proforma - where only information of case number, name of parties, section, date and next date is to be filled by Magistrate in handwriting. (Para -3,4 ) HELD:- 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. (Para - 10) Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. allowed. (E-7) List Of Cases Cited:- ## Text 3-5 All. Deepak Jha Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. 1629 embark upon an enquiry whether the allegations in the complaint are likely to be established by evidence or not". 10. Meaning thereby, exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is within the limits, propounded as above. Accordingly, this application merits its dismissal. The application is dismissed as such. ---------- (2020)03-05ILR A1629 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.02.2020 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J. Application U/S 482 No. 4487 of 2020 Deepak Jha ...Applicant Versus State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties Counsel for the Applicant: Sri Mahesh Kumar Tripathi Counsel for the Opposite Parties: A.G.A. (A) Criminal Law- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138- Printed proforma - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent jurisdiction - - Magistrate not required to pass detailed reasoned order at the time of taking cognizance on the charge sheet - does not mean that order of taking cognizance can be passed by filling up the blanks on printed proforma - apply judicial mind and even the order of taking cognizance cannot be passed in mechanical manner - impugned order quashed. (Para - 9) Complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act - Magistrate after recording the statement of the complainant as well as witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. - summoned the applicant - Magistrate not applied judicial mind in passing the summoning order - order made on a printed proforma - where only information of case number, name of parties, section, date and next date is to be filled by Magistrate in handwriting. (Para -3,4 ) HELD:- 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. (Para - 10) Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. allowed. (E-7) List Of Cases Cited:- 1. Ankit Vs. St. of U.P. & anr., JIC 2010 (1) 432, 2. Megh Nath Guptas & anr. Vs. St. of U.P. & anr., 2008 (62) ACC 826 3. Deputy Chief Controller Import and Export Vs Roshan Lal Agarwal, 2003 (4) ACC 686 (SC) 4. UP Pollution Control Board Vs Mohan Meakins, 2000 (2) JIC 159 (SC): AIR 2000 SC 1456 5. Kanti Bhadra Vs St. of W.B., 2000 (1) JIC 751 (SC): 2000 (40) ACC 441 (SC) (Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan , J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State. 2. This application has been filed for setting aside the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No.1946 of 2016 (Pawan Kumar Vs. Deepak Jha), under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, Police Station Prem Nagar, District Jhansi, arising 1630 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES out of impugned summoning order dated 22.02.2019 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Jhansi as well as to set aside the impugned summoning order dated 22.02.2019. 3. Record reflects that a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act was filed on 15.12.2016 by opposite party no. 2- Pawan Kumar Jain against the applicant herein alleging dishonoring of cheque, on the ground of insufficiency of fund. The Magistrate concerned after recording the statement of the complainant as well as witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., vide impugned order dated 22.02.2019 has summoned the applicant. 4. While assailing the impugned summoning order, contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the Magistrate has not applied judicial mind in passing the summoning order as the order has been made on a printed proforma, in which the name of the accused has been filled up by hand. 5. Relying upon the decision of this Court in Ankit Vs. State of U.P. and another, JIC 2010 (1) 432, submission of the learned counsel for the applicants is that the order impugned being on a printed proforma is clearly without application of judicial mind and hence is liable to be quashed on this ground alone. 6. `Learned AGA has also admitted that the order impugned has been passed on the printed proforma and therefore, keeping in view the decision in the case of Ankit (supra), the Magistrate concerned may be directed to pass a fresh order. 7. I have considered the arguments so advanced by learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. and also perused the record. 8. The certified copy of the order summoning the accused has been appended as Annexure-3. From a perusal of the above order, it is evident that it is a typed proforma where only information of case number, name of parties, section, date and next date is to be filled by Magistrate in handwriting. It appears that the blanks in the printed proforma have been filled up by some court employee and the Magistrate namely Sri Manoj Kumar Tiwari, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Jhansi, has thereafter just put his initial, which leads to the conclusion that the Magistrate has passed the order in a mechanical manner without application of judicial mind. 9. Despite there being a series of decisions of the Apex Court and this Court disapproving such practice of passing orders on printed proforma by the judicial officers, it is very painful and unfortunate to see that applicant in the present case has been summoned by the Magistrate by an order in which blanks have been filled in on a printed proforma without applying judicial mind. This type of order has already been held unsustainable by this Court in the case of Ankit (supra) relying on in a number of decisions of the Apex Court. The relevant portion of the said decision, is extracted below: "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 3-5 All. Shahnawaz Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. 1631 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."(Emphasis supplied) 10. 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. 11. In view of what has been stated above, the present application is allowed. The order impugned dated 22.02.2019 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi is hereby quashed. The Magistrate is directed to pass fresh order after applying the judicial mind. ---------- (2020)03-05ILR A1631 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.02.2020 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J. Application U/S 482 No. 4914 of 2020 Shahnawaz ...Applicant Versus State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties Counsel for the Applicant: Sri Mohd. Afzal Counsel for the Opposite Parties: A.G.A. (A) Criminal law- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent jurisdiction - applicant summoned without following the procedure laid down in the case of J V Baharuni, Giriraj Proteins Pvt. Ltd. Baldevbhai Ramjibhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat, D M Finance, Vishnubhai Hargovinddas Patel - In a prosecution under the Negotiable Instruments Act, the compensatory aspect of remedy must be given priority over the punitive aspect - impugned summoning order - set aside. (Para-5) Complaint filed under section 138 of negotiable instrument Act - allegation - applicant and opposite party no.2 were having friendly relations to each other, due to this the applicant borrowed Rs.5,10,000/- - assurance that the same will be returned after two months - time period of two months elapsed and the applicant did not return the aforesaid money taken by him - cheque issued - returned due to "insufficient funds" - legal notice to the accused - neither