# Pankaj Jaiswal v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2021) 8 ILRA 672
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-08-09
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482. No. 11334 of 2021
- **Bench:** Shamim Ahmed
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/pankaj-jaiswal-v-state-of-u-p-anr-47290
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Law-Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 482 - Indian
Penal Code, 1860-Section 406,420,506quashing of chargesheet-opposite party
purchased a plot from the applicant and
after one year he came to know that the
applicant is not the original owner of the
plot-opposite party demanded his money
back but the applicant refused to give the
money and threatened to his life and his
family-Order
passed

by
the
Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate in mechanical
manner through a printed order without
applying
judicial
mind
and
without
considering the material cannot be legally
sustained, as it does not stand the test of
the law laid down by the Apex Court.(Para
1 to 27)

B. Judicial orders can not 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.(Para 9 to 24)

The application is allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

672 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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."

23. 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.

24. In light of the judgments referred to
above, it is explicitly clear that the order dated
5.9.2020 passed by Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial
Magistrate, Banshi, District Siddarthnagar is
cryptic and does not stand the test of the law
laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
Consequently, the cognizance order dated
5.9.2020 cannot be legally sustained, as the
Magistrate failed to exercise the jurisdiction
vested in him resulting in miscarriage of
justice.

25. Accordingly, the present Criminal
Misc. Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C succeeds
and is allowed. The impugned cognizance
order dated 5.9.2020 passed by Civil Judge
(J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Banshi, District
Siddarthnagar in Case No.1594 of 2020 (State
vs Dharmraj and others) arising out of Case
Crime No.68 of 2020 under Sections 325,323,
504 IPC P.S. Banshi District Siddharthnagar is
hereby quashed.

26. The Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial
Magistrate, Banshi, District Siddarthnagar is
directed to decide afresh the issue for taking
cognizance and summoning the applicant 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.

27. With the above direction, the
application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
stands allowed.
----------
(2021)08ILR A672
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.08.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 11334 of 2021

Pankaj Jaiswal ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties
8 All. Pankaj Jaiswal Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
673
Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Anurag Shukla, Sri Amrendra Nath
Singh (Senior Adv.)

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

A.
Criminal
Law-Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 482 - Indian
Penal Code, 1860-Section 406,420,506quashing of chargesheet-opposite party
purchased a plot from the applicant and
after one year he came to know that the
applicant is not the original owner of the
plot-opposite party demanded his money
back but the applicant refused to give the
money and threatened to his life and his
family-Order
passed

by
the
Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate in mechanical
manner through a printed order without
applying
judicial
mind
and
without
considering the material cannot be legally
sustained, as it does not stand the test of
the law laid down by the Apex Court.(Para
1 to 27)

B. Judicial orders can not 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.(Para 9 to 24)

The application is allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

1. Dilawar Vs St. of Har.(2018) 16 SCC 521

2. Menka Gandhi Vs U.O.I. (1978) AIR SC 597

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

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

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

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

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

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

9. Sunil Bharti Mittal Vs CBI (2015) AIR SC 923

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

11. Ankit Vs St. of U.P. & anr.

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

13. Deputy Chief Controller Import and 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.CRLR No.
3209 of 2019

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

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

1. Learned counsel for the applicant is
permitted to correct the district in the body
of the application during course of the day.

2. Heard Sri Amrendra Nath Singh,
learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri
Anurag Shukla, learned counsel for the
applicant, learned AGA for the State and
perused the record.
674 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

3. This application under Section 482
Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the
charge
sheet
dated
22.11.2019
and
cognizance order dated 18.03.2020 in Case
No.9149 of 2020 (State of U.P. Vs. Pankaj
Jaiswal & others) arising out of Case Crime
No.1242 of 2017, under Sections 406, 420,
506 I.P.C., Police Station Chakeri, District
Kanpur Nagar, pending in the Court of
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur
Nagar. A further prayer has also been made
to stay the further proceedings of the
aforesaid case.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants
submit that on 07.11.2017 the respondent
no.2 lodged an F.I.R. against the applicants,
which was registered as case crime
no.1242/2017, under Sections 406, 420,
506 I.P.C., Police Station Chakeri, District
Kanpur Nagar.

5. As per the prosecution version of
the F.I.R, the opposite party no.2 purchased
a plot (arazi no.684) from the applicant and
after mutation the opposite party no.2 also
raised boundary on the aforesaid plot. After
one year of the sale deed, the opposite party
no.2 came to know from one person
namely Shukla Ji that the applicant-Pankanj
Jaiswal is not the original owner of the
aforesaid plot, which he has purchased
from the applicant. Thereafter, the opposite
party no.2 demanded his money back from
the applicant. The applicant sought two
months time to return the money, which he
was received from the opposite party no.2.
After two months, when the opposite party
no.2 demanded his money then the
applicant refused to return the money and
also threatened to his life and his whole
family.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant
further submits that the entire prosecution
story is false. No such incident took place
and
the
applicant
has
been
falsely
implicated in the present case.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant
further 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
Section 406, 420 and 506 IPC on
22.11.2019, copy of the same is filed as
Annexure No.14 to the affidavit, whereas
he further submits that on the charge-sheet,
the
learned
Magistrate
had
taken
cognizance on 18.03.2020 and the case was
numbered as Case No.9149 of 2020. The
cognizance was taken on the printed
proforma by filling the sections of IPC,
dates and number and in the said proforma
the learned Magistrate without assigning
any reason has summoned the applicants
for facing trial. Copy of the same is also
annexed as Annexure No.14 to the
affidavit.

8. Learned counsel for the applicants
further submits that by the order dated
18.03.2020 cognizance taken by the learned
Magistrate on printed proforma without
assigning any reason is abused of process
of law.

9. Learned counsel for the applicants
further submits that after submission of
charge sheet the applicants have been
summoned mechanically by order dated
18.03.2020 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
8 All. Pankaj Jaiswal Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
675
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
applicant. The court below has summoned
the applicant 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 18.03.2020 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
18.03.2020 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 applicants
has given much emphasis that if the
cognizance has been taken on the printed
proforma, the same is not sustainable.

12. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the
State submitted that considering the material
evidences
and
allegations
against
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
676 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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 primary 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
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 noncognizable 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 charge sheet 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 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
sufficient ground for proceedIn 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 observed
as under:-
8 All. Pankaj Jaiswal Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
677

"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
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
678 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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 "अमभयुक्त अंमकत
की मगरफ्तारी िा0 उच्च न्यायायल द्वारा Crl.
Writ No. 19559/08 अंमकत िनाि राज्य िें
पाररत आदेश मदनांक 5.11.08 द्वारा आरोप पत्र
प्राप्त होने तक थथमगत थी।"

 Below aforesaid sentence, the
seal of the court containing name of Sri
Talevar
Singh,
the
then
Judicial
Magistrate-III, has been affixed and the
learned magistrate has put his short
signature (initial) over his name. The
manner in 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."
8 All. Pankaj Jaiswal Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
679

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."

25. In view of the above, this Court
finds and observes that 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 and without satisfying
himself as to which offence were primafacie being made out against the applicants
on the basis of the allegations made by the
complainant. the impugned cognizance
order passed by the learned Magistrate is
against the settled judicial norms.

26. In light of the judgments referred
to above, it is explicitly clear that the order
dated 18.03.2020 passed by the Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar is
cryptic and does not stand the test of the
law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
Consequently, the cognizance order dated
18.03.2020 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 18.03.2020 passed
by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Kanpur Nagar, is hereby quashed in Case
No.9149 of 2020 (State of U.P. Vs. Pankaj
Jaiswal & others) arising out of Case Crime
680 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
No.1242 of 2017, under Sections 406, 420,
506 I.P.C., Police Station Chakeri, District
Kanpur Nagar.

28.

The
Chief
Metropolitan
Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar, is directed to
decide
afresh
the
issue
for
taking
cognizance and summoning the applicant
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 two months from
the date of production of a copy of this
order.

29. Let a copy of this order be placed
before the learned Registrar General of this
Court within a week from today and the
learned Registrar General is directed to
issue
a
circular/
memorandum
in
accordance with law to all the District
Judges in the State of Uttar Pradesh
intimating them to inform all the Judicial
Officer not to use "Printed Proforma" in
passing the Judicial Orders in view of the
observations made herein above.

30. The party shall file computer
generated copy of such order downloaded
from the official website of High Court
Allahabad or certified copy issued from the
Registry of the High Court, Allahabad.

31. The concerned Court/ Authority/
Official shall verify the authenticity of such
computerized copy of the order from the
official website of High Court Allahabad
and shall make a declaration of such
verification in writing.
----------
(2021)08ILR A680
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.07.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 15865 of 2020

Smt. Kripa Devi ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Vishal Mohan Gupta

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

A.
Criminal
Law-Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 482 - U.P.
Gangsters and Anti Social Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1986-Section 14(1)-
quashing of -the powers exercised by
the police comissioner u/ s 14(1) for
attachment of property are in his
capacity as an Executive Magistrate
and the order so passed is to be
followed by a reference to the Special
Court u/s 16-it would be open to the
claimant to file a representation as
per procedure u/s 15 within a period
of 90 days-in the absence of which
the matter would be referred to the
Special
Court,
Gangsters
Actrepresentation filed by the applicant
has been disposed of -At this stage,
necessary
consequences
under the
Act, relating to inquiry by the Special
Court would follow and any order
passed after inquiry, would be subject
to an appeal u/s 18 of the Act.(Para 1
to 36)

The application is dismissed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

1. Emperor Vs Khwaja Nazir Ahmed (1945) AIR
PC 18

2. A.N. Roy, Commr. of Police & anr. Vs Suresh
Sham Singh (2006) 5 SCC 745