# Ram Kewal v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2024) 1 ILRA 158
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-01-19
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 2413 of 2016
- **Bench:** Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-kewal-v-state-of-u-p-anr-51061
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Sections 419 & 420 - Constitution of
India,1950 - Article 21 - Application u/s 482 -
for quashing the charge-sheet as well as
summoning order - FIR - Charge-sheet - plea
taken that, the impugned charge-sheet was filled
on a printed proforma and summoning order was
passed without applying judicial mind, as required
by law - Court finds that, - merit in this claim,
citing precedents including Lalankumar Singh v. St.
of Mah. and various rulings from coordinate
benches, all emphasizing that issuing process must
reflect a Magistrate's prima facie satisfaction based
on the material on record - Court held that, merely
filing up printed proforma and then signing the
same will not be a cognizance at all because this is
completely non-application of mind on the part of
concern Magistrate for taking such mechanical
orders which also violate constitutional safeguards
under Article 21 - hence, directed to issue wellreasoned cognizance orders afresh, within one
month - consequently, applicant is allowed and the
impugned orders are quashed. (Para - 9, 10, 11)

Application Allowed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

158 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
warranting prosecution of the applicant for
offences under Section 193/211 I.P.C. The
learned
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate,
Lakhimpur
Kheri
appears
to
have
committed a patent error in framing charges
against the applicant and directing him to
face trial for the charges.

31. Accordingly, the present application
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. The
impugned order dated 24.12.1985, passed by
the
learned
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate,
Lakhimpur Kheri in Criminal Case No.1191
of 1987 as well as the order dated
12.01.1987, passed in the aforesaid case
whereby charges have been framed against
the applicant, are hereby quashed.
----------
(2024) 1 ILRA 158
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 19.01.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH
DESHWAL, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 2413 of 2016

Ram Kewal ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Angre
Nath
Shukla,
Deo
Prakash
Srivastava, Naveen Kumar Pandey

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
Govt. Advocate

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Sections 419 & 420 - Constitution of
India,1950 - Article 21 - Application u/s 482 -
for quashing the charge-sheet as well as
summoning order - FIR - Charge-sheet - plea
taken that, the impugned charge-sheet was filled
on a printed proforma and summoning order was
passed without applying judicial mind, as required
by law - Court finds that, - merit in this claim,
citing precedents including Lalankumar Singh v. St.
of Mah. and various rulings from coordinate
benches, all emphasizing that issuing process must
reflect a Magistrate's prima facie satisfaction based
on the material on record - Court held that, merely
filing up printed proforma and then signing the
same will not be a cognizance at all because this is
completely non-application of mind on the part of
concern Magistrate for taking such mechanical
orders which also violate constitutional safeguards
under Article 21 - hence, directed to issue wellreasoned cognizance orders afresh, within one
month - consequently, applicant is allowed and the
impugned orders are quashed. (Para - 9, 10, 11)

Application Allowed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

1. Lalankumar Singh Vs St. of Mah.; 2022 SCC
OnLine SC 1383,

2. Surendra Kumar & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & anr.-
2021 (7) ADJ 61,

3. Dhanesh Kumar @ Dhanesh Kumar Mishra Vs
St. of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Lko. & anr.
passed in Application u/s 482 No.9892 of 2022
dated 04.01.2023,

4. Amit Kumar Dwivedi & anr. Vs St. of U.P. &
anr. - Application u/s 482 No. 35443/2023 -
order dated 05.10.2023.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh
Deshwal, J.)

1. Learned counsel for the applicant is
permitted to correct the prayer clause,
during the course of the day.

2. Despite service of notice, no one
appears on behalf of opposite party no.2.

3. Heard learned counsel for the
applicant and Sri Arvind Kumar Tripathi,
learned
AGA
for
the
State.
1 All. Ram Kewal Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
159

4. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application
has been filed to quash the chargesheet
no.05/2016 arising out of Case Crime
No.373/15, under Sections-419, 420 IPC,
Police
Station-Kotwali
Colonelganj,
District-Gonda, as well as summoning
order dated 01.03.2016 passed by Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Gonda.

5. Contention of learned counsel for
the
applicant
is
that
the
impugned
cognizance
order
on
the
impugned
chargesheet was illegal as same was
absolutely passed without application of
mind being filled up printed proforma and
signing the same. In support of his
submission,
learned
counsel
for
the
applicant has relied upon the judgement of
coordinate Bench of this Court dated
04.01.2023 passed in Application u/s 482
No.9892 of 2022.

6. Per contra, learned AGA has
opposed the prayer but could not dispute
the aforesaid fact that the cognizance order
is nothing but simply filling up the printed
proforma and thereafter, signing by the
concerned Magistrate.

7. After hearing the parties and on
perusal of record, it is explicit from the
perusal
of
cognizance
order
dated
01.03.2016 that the same was nothing but
simply filling up the printed proforma and
signing the same which itself shows that
there is complete non-application of mind
on the part of Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Gonda.

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Lalankumar Singh vs State of
Maharashtra; 2022 SCC OnLine SC
1383 has observed in paragraph no.38 that
order of issue of process is not an empty
formality. Learned Magistrate is required to
apply his mind as to whether the sufficient
ground for proceeding exists in the case or
not. Paragraph no.38 of the aforesaid
judgement is quoted as below:

"38. The order of issuance of
process is not an empty formality. The
Magistrate is required to apply his mind as
to whether sufficient ground for proceeding
exists in the case or not. The formation of
such an opinion is required to be stated in
the order itself. The order is liable to be set
aside if no reasons are given therein while
coming to the conclusion that there is a
prima facie case against the accused. No
doubt, that the order need not contain
detailed reasons. A reference in this respect
could be made to the judgement of this
court in the case of Sunil Bharti Mittal v.
Central Bureau of Investigation, which
reads thus:

51. On the other hand, Section
204 of the Code deals with the issue of
process, if in the opinion of the Magistrate
taking cognizance of an offence, there is
sufficient ground for proceeding. This
section relates to commencement of a
criminal proceeding. If the Magistrate
taking cognizance of a case (it may be the
Magistrate receiving the complaint or to
whom it has been transferred under Section
192), upon a consideration of the materials
before him (i.e. the complaint, examination
of the complainant and his witnesses, if
present, or report of inquiry, if any), thinks
that there is a prima facie case for
proceeding in respect of an offence, he
shall issue process against the accused.

52. A wide discretion has been
given as to grant or refusal of process and
it must be judicially exercised. A person
ought not to be dragged into court merely
because a complaint has been filed. If a
prima case has been made out, the
Magistrate ought to issue process and it
160 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
cannot refused merely because he thinks
that it is unlikely to result in a conviction.

53.
However,
the
words
"sufficient
ground
for
proceeding"
appearing in Section 204 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. The order is liable to be set aside if
no reason is given therein while coming to
the conclusion that there is prima facie
case against the accused, though the order
need not contain detailed reasons. A
fortiori, the order would be bad in law if
the reason given turns out to be ex facie
incorrect."

9. The coordinate Bench of this court
again considered the issue in the case of
Surendra Kumar & others Vs. State of
U.P. & Another reported in 2021 (7) ADJ
61 as well as in the case of Dhanesh
Kumar @ Dhanesh Kumar Mishra
Vs.State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy.
(Home) Lko. And Another passed in
Application u/s 482 No.9892 of 2022
dated 04.01.2023 in which taking of
cognizance on printed proforma was
deprecated and held the same as nonapplication of mind. This issue was again
considered by this court in the case of Amit
Kumar Dwivedi and another vs. State of
U.P. and another passed in Application u/s
482 No. 35443 of 2023; vide order dated
05.10.2023. In that case, the court after
relying upon the judgement of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court as well as several other
coordinate benches of this court clearly
observed that merely signing and filling up
the date and case crime number in the
printed
proforma
is
absolutely
nonapplication of mind and also directed to all
the Judicial Magistrates/concerned courts
in State of U.P. not to pass cognizance
order simply filling up the printed proforma
and copy of this order was also circulated
by the High Court to all the District Judges
in State of U.P. Paragraph nos.9, 12 and 13
of the aforesaid judgement are being
quoted as under:

"9. In view of above legal
position, this Court is of the view that
merely signing and filling up the date and
case crime number in printed proforma is
absolutely
non-application
of
mind
because the cognizance order must reflect
the prima facie opinion of the learned
Magistrate on the material collected
during investigation. Order of issuance of
process is not an empty formality, it may
affect the personal liberty of a person.
Article 21 of Constitution of India
guarantees personal liberty of a person
and same cannot be deprived of, without
due procedure of law. Apart from this,
summoning of accused to appear before
criminal court after taking cognizance is a
serious matter, affecting the dignity, selfrespect and image in society. Therefore,
proper process by the criminal court must
be followed at the time of taking
cognizance and summoning the accused."

12. This Court further directs to
all the Magistrates/concerned courts, while
taking cognizance on the charge sheet, the
Magistrate/concerned court must mention
the fact that which document he has
perused and on perusal of those documents
prima facie case for taking cognizance is
made out on the basis of above material
with short reasoning for making out prima
facie case.

13. Registrar (Compliance) is
directed to circulate the copy of this order
to all District Judges for perusal and
further circulation."
1 All. Vikas Verma Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
161

10. From the above mentioned legal
position, it is clear that merely filling up
printed proforma and then signing the same
will not be a cognizance at all because this
is completely non-application of mind on
the part of the concerned Magistrate for
taking cognizance. Learned Magistrate has
to apply his mind on the material available
before him which should be reflected from
his cognizance order, itself.

11. In view of the above, impugned
cognizance order dated 01.03.2016 passed
by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gonda is
hereby quashed and he is at liberty to pass a
fresh cognizance order in light of the
observations made above, within a period
of one month.

12. With the aforesaid observations,
the present application is allowed.
----------
(2024) 1 ILRA 161
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 18.01.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 9771 of 2023

Vikas Verma ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Rakesh Kumar Agarwal, Saksham Agarwal

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
G.A., Girish Kumar Pande, Prashant Pandey

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 216, 217 & 482 - Indian
Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 304-B &
498-A - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 -
Sections 3 & 4 - Application u/s 482 - for
quashing the charge-sheet and summoning order
- FIR - alleged that accused has harassed the
deceased for dowry after marriage - accusations
included forced purchases of expensive items like
a Royal Enfield motorcycle and jewellery -
Investigation - Charge-sheet, filed only against
accused husband, but names of other co-accused
are dropped - whether trial court can be framed
charge without having any material or evidence
to that effect - court finds that, - no material of
any kind is available at to suggest the prosecution
to file charge sheet against the present petitioner
u/s 302 IPC - held that, the alternative charge
may not be framed against the against the
petitioner by the trial court - Accordingly,
impugned summoning order is set-aside -
however, the trial court may be conducted and
concluded the trial against the petitioner u/s 498A, 304-B of IPC and u/s 3/4 DP Act, in
accordance with law - consequently, applicant is
partly allowed. (Para - 16, 18, 19)

Application Partly allowed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

1. Shamnsaheb M. Multtani Vs St. of Karn.
(2001) 2 SCC 577.

2. Lakhjit Singh Vs St. of Punj. - (1994) Suppl. 1
SCC 173.

3. Shanti Vs St. of Har. - (1991) 1 SCC 371.

4. Jasvinder Saini & ors. Vs St. (Government of
NCT of Delhi) - (2013) 7 SCC 256.

5. Rajbir alias Raju & anr. Vs St. of Har. -
(2010) 15 SCC 1156.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh Singh
Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard Sri Saksham Agarwal,
learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri
Aniruddh Kumar Singh, learned AGA-I for
the State.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has informed that the learned counsels for