# Sudesh Bhadauria v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 5525 of 2020
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-12-19
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 5525 of 2020
- **Bench:** Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sudesh-bhadauria-v-state-of-u-p-ors-46191
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Criminal Law-Criminal Procedure Code (2
of 1974) - Section 482 - Quashing of
summoning order - use of blank printed
proforma in passing the judicial order not
3-5 All. Sudesh Bhadauria Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1653
proper - Held - Certain places in the
impugned summoning order left blank
which shows that there was total non
application of mind while passing the
summoning order - Summoning order
quashed (Para 5, 8)

Application allowed (E-5)

List of case cited :

Ankit Vs. St. of U.P. & anr. reported in 2009 (9)
ADJ 778

## Text

1652 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
ensure principles of natural justice and fair
trial.

34. In view of above discussion, the
second issue is decided in favour of
accused-applicant.

35.

Order
sheet
reveals
that
cognizance in this case was taken on
20.06.2010
and
on
02.07.2016
the
Magistrate
concerned
directed
the
concerned clerk to get the copies of all
prosecution documents prepared fixing
23.07.2016 for supply of those copies to the
accused and committal of case, but from
that day till 20.03.2018 applicant started
sending adjournment application seeking
exemption of his personal appearance on
34 dates and thereafter the accusedapplicant
adopting
different
modus
operandi by hook or by crook delayed the
trial proceedings. The valuable time of the
court below has been wasted only in
deciding applications under Section 207
Cr.P.C. moved by the applicant on one
ground or others.

36. In view of above, impugned order
dated 19.12.2019 is quashed only to the
extent, whereby prayer of the accusedapplicant
for
providing
documents
accompanied police report under Section
173 Cr.P.C. has been refused. So far as
applicant's request for demand of copy of
F.I.R., which was inadvertently registered
at Book No 036428 as mentioned above is
concerned, the same is hereby rejected.

37. As a fallout and consequence of
aforesaid discussion, this application under
section 482 Cr.P.C. is partly allowed with
a direction to the trial court to provide copy
of all the documents accompanied police
report to the accused applicant, on which
prosecution proposes to rely against the
applicant within two weeks from the date
of production of certified copy of this order
before it. It is made clear that in case
accused-applicant or his counsel refuses to
receive the same, the trial court after
recording the said facts in the order sheet
shall send above mentioned documents to
the address of the accused-applicant by
registered post within a week thereafter,
and will proceed with the trial, in
accordance with law, making all endeavour
to conclude the trial, expeditiously, without
granting any unnecessary adjournments to
either of the parties, preferably within a
period of one year, keeping in mind that
this case is pending since 2010. Applicant
is also directed to co-operate with the trial
proceeding.

38. Office is directed to communicate
this order to the concerned court below.
----------
(2020)03-05ILR A1652
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.02.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI
CHAUHAN, J.

Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 5525 of 2020

Sudesh Bhadauria ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Ashutosh Sharma

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

Criminal Law-Criminal Procedure Code (2
of 1974) - Section 482 - Quashing of
summoning order - use of blank printed
proforma in passing the judicial order not
3-5 All. Sudesh Bhadauria Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1653
proper - Held - Certain places in the
impugned summoning order left blank
which shows that there was total non
application of mind while passing the
summoning order - Summoning order
quashed (Para 5, 8)

Application allowed (E-5)

List of case cited :

Ankit Vs. St. of U.P. & anr. reported in 2009 (9)
ADJ 778

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani
Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard Sri Ashutosh Sharma,
learned counsel for the applicant and Sri
Amit Singh Chauhan, learned A.G.A. for
the State.

2. This application under Section 482
Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the
impugned
summoning
order
dated
20.02.2019 as well as subsequent orders
and the entire proceedings of Complaint
Case No.3073 of 2018 (Shriram Transport
Vs. Sudesh), Police Station Navabad,
District Jhansi, pending in the court of
A.C.J.M.-II, Jhansi.

3. It has been submitted by learned
counsel for the applicant that the Judicial
Magistrate did not apply his judicial mind at the
time of passing the summoning order against
the applicant as the impugned summoning
order has been passed on a printed proforma,
which is not permissible under law. In support
of his contention, learned counsel for the
applicant has relied upon the judgment in the
case of Ankit Vs. State of U.P. & another
reported in 2009 (9) ADJ 778.

4. Certified copy of the impugned
summoning order is annexed as Annexure 1 to
the affidavit which goes to show that the order
has been passed on a printed proforma by filling
up the blanks. Blanks on the printed proforma
appear to have been filled by the court
employee. Learned Magistrate has simply put
his initial over his name without applying his
judicial mind before passing the said order.

5. He has further submitted that the
learned Magistrate has simply signed the
summoning order which in fact is the
reproduction of a rubber stamp. The entire
language of the order consists of a rubber stamp
which was already typed with blank spaces at
certain places. Certain places in the impugned
summoning order are left blank which shows
that there was total non-application of mind
while passing the summoning order.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has
confined his argument only to the extent that
the impugned summoning order is a printed
proforma order, which has been passed without
applying its judicial mind, and the same is
illegal and liable to be quashed.

7. On the other hand, learned A.G.A.
submits that the impugned summoning order,
which has been prepared and passed by filling
up the blanks on the printed proforma, is wholly
illegal and invalid.

8. The argument advanced on behalf
of applicant has substance. The use of
blanks printed proforma in passing the
judicial order is not proper and the order of
summoning the applicant has been passed
without application of judicial mind, which
is substantiated by the fact that even the
date has not been mentioned filling up the
blanks which has been left in the rubber
stamp
for
mentioning
the
date
of
appearance.

9. In view of the facts and
circumstances of the case, stated above, the
1654 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
impugned
summoning
order
dated
20.02.2019 is hereby quashed. Learned
court below is directed to pass a fresh order
on the complaint after applying his judicial
mind.

10. The application stands allowed.

11. Let a copy of this order be sent to
the court concerned for compliance.

12. Register General of this Court is
directed to send a copy of this order to the
concerned court taking into consideration
the fact that all the Presiding Officer shall
restrain themselves from using such printed
proforma in judicial work. The blank
printed proformas available in the court
below will be seized.
----------
(2020)03-05ILR A1654
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.02.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR SINGH, J.

Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 5721 of 2020

Jaswant ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Ashok Nath Tripathi, Sri Gopal Krishna,
Sri Rakesh Nath Tripathi

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A., Sri Ajay Sengar

Criminal Law-Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Section 319 - Power to proceed
against other persons appearing to be
guilty of offence - Degree of Satisfaction -
degree of satisfaction before summoning
u/s 319 CrPC must be more than prima
facie, which is warranted at the time of
framing of charges - power u/s 319 CrPC
can be exercised where strong & cogent
evidence are found against a person

In FIR specific allegation of firing against the
applicant - which hit deceased & thereby he
died - statement of informant PW 1 recorded
during trial consistent - PW-2 also gave same
statement against the applicant - which is much
more than prima facie evidence - cross
examination of PW-1, PW-2 already completed -
Held - no illegality in summoning applicant u/s
319 CrPC (Para 31)

Application dismissed (E-5)

List of cases cited :

1.Labhuji Amratji Thakor & ors. Vs. St. of Guj &
ors., AIR 2019 SC 734

2.Hardeep Singh Vs St. of Pun & ors., 2014 (3)
SCC 92

3.Shiv Prakash Mishra Vs St. of U.P. & anr. 2019
(7) SCC 806

4.Vikas Vs St. of Raj (2014)3 SCC 321
5.Brijendra Singh & Ors Vs St. of Raj., 2017(7)
SCC 706

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

1. Mr. Ajay Sengar, learned Advocate
has filed his appearance slip today on
behalf of opposite party No. 2/informant,
which is taken on record.

2. Heard Mr. Ashok Nath Tripathi,
Mr. Gopal Krishna, Mr. Rakesh Nath
Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the
applicant,
Mr.
Ajay
Sengar,
learned
counsel
for
the
opposite
party
No.
2/informant and Mr. Shiv Sewak Ram
Dwivedi, learned Additional Government
Advocate assisted by Mr. Raj Mani Yadav,
learned brief holder representing the State