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

- **Citation:** (2021) 7 ILRA 371
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-10-12
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 8078 of 2021
- **Bench:** Shamim Ahmed
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/surendra-kumar-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-47104
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 482 - Indian
Penal Code, 1860 - Section 323, 504 & 506
-
quashing
of-chargesheet
and
summoning
order-
the
impugned
summoning
order
was
passed
in
mechanical manner without application of
judicial mind-the order is cryptic and does
not stand the test of the law laid down by
the Hon'ble Apex Court-the cognizance
order dated 10.9.2020 cannot be legally
372 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
sustained, as the Magistrate failed to
exercise the jurisdiction vested in him
resulting in miscarriage of justice-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 1 to 26)

B.
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 therefore, the impugned
order cannot be upheld.(Para 14 to 23)

The application is allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

7 All. Surendra Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
371
who run to the Court at the costs of their
own vocations of life. Unless it is
absolutely necessary, proceedings under
Section 107/116, Cr.P.C. should not be
resorted
to.
Experience
tells
that
proceedings like the one under Section
107/116 of the Code are conducted in a
most lethargic and lackadaisical manner by
the learned Executive Magistrate causing
harassment to public beyond measure. "

7. Learned counsel for the applicant has
placed further reliance upon judgments of this
Court reported in 2004 (5) ACC 734
Aurangzeb and others Vs. State of U.P. and
another, 2002 (45) ACC 627 Ranjeet Kumar
and others Vs. State of U.P. and others and
2008 (61) ACC 540 Har Charan Vs. State of
U.P. and another in support of his contention.

8. In view of aforesaid, this Court has
examined
the
impugned
notices
dated
12.10.2020 and 19.10.2020, issued by Sub
Divisional Magistrate, Amaria, Pilibhit under
Sections 110(G) and 111 Cr.P.C. The Court
finds that impugned notice contains a bare
recital that there is apprehension of commission
of cognizable offence. Impugned notice does
not contain full substance of information given
by concerned Police Officer. Consequently,
concerned Magistrate has not acted judiciously
while issuing the impugned notices dated
12.10.2020 and 19.10.2020. The notice under
Section 110G and 111 Cr.P.C. has been issued
only on the basis of one case the impugned
notice does not contain the substance of
allegation which has been made against the
applicant and has been issued in a routine
manner on a printed format.

9. In view of above, the impugned
notices dated 12.10.2020 and 19.10.2020,
issued by Sub Divisional Magistrate,
Amaria, Pilibhit, cannot be sustained.
Accordingly, the same is liable to be
quashed.

10. Consequently, present application
succeeds and is liable to be allowed. It is
accordingly allowed. Impugned notices
dated 12.10.2020 and 19.10.2020 are
quashed.
Sub
Divisional
Magistrate,
Amaria, Pilibhit, shall issue a fresh notice
after undertaking requisite exercise in the
light of observations made herein above
and in accordance with law, if deem fit
under the circumstances of the case.
----------
(2021)07ILR A371
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.07.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.

Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 8078 of 2021

Surendra Kumar & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Shashi Kumar Mishra

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

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 482 - Indian
Penal Code, 1860 - Section 323, 504 & 506
-
quashing
of-chargesheet
and
summoning
order-
the
impugned
summoning
order
was
passed
in
mechanical manner without application of
judicial mind-the order is cryptic and does
not stand the test of the law laid down by
the Hon'ble Apex Court-the cognizance
order dated 10.9.2020 cannot be legally
372 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
sustained, as the Magistrate failed to
exercise the jurisdiction vested in him
resulting in miscarriage of justice-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 1 to 26)

B.
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 therefore, the impugned
order cannot be upheld.(Para 14 to 23)

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. P. Ramchandra Rao Vs St. of Karnatka (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 All 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. Application
No.19647 of 2009

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 UP
Pollution Control Board Vs Mohan Meakins
(2000) 2 JIC 159 SC: AIR 2000 SC 1456 Kanti
Bhadra Vs St. of W. B. (2000) 1 JIC 751 SC:
2000 (40) ACC 441 SC

14. Kavi Ahmad Vs St. of U.P. & anr. CRLR No.
3209 of 2010

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

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the
applicants through video conferencing,
learned AGA for the State and perused the
record.

2. This application under Section 482
Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the
criminal proceedings in pursuance of the
charge-sheet dated 19.03.2020 as well as
cognizance order dated 08.05.2020 passed
by learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate-I, Mainpuri in Case No. 2212 of
2020 (State Vs. Surendra Kumar) arising
out of Case Crime No. 086 of 2020, under
7 All. Surendra Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
373
Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police
Station-Kuraoli, District-Mainpuri, pending
in the Court of learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate-I, Mainpuri.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants
submit that on 12.03.2020 respondent no.2
lodged an F.I.R. against the applicants for
an incident alleged to have taken place on
11.03.2020 which was registered as case
crime no.0086/2020, under Sections 452,
323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station
Kuraoli, District Mainpuri.

4. As per the prosecution version of
the F.I.R, on 11.03.2020 at about 7:30 p.m.,
when wife of the informant was cooking
food, Surendra Kumar and Sonpal son of
Nekram, Sanju son of Vijaypal and
Vijaypal son of Sardar Singh of the same
village as the informant who were armed
with lathi and danda reached the place of
informant's wife and started hurling abuses
and also beaten her. Accused- Vijaypal
who was armed with axe attacked on the
head of informant's wife upon which blood
was bleeding out from her head and when
the informant's elder daughter namely
Shivani reached there for solving the
matter,
accused-Surendra
and
Sonpal
started beating to the informant's daugher
and wife by lathi and danda as a result both
have sustained serious injuries. Also,
informant's younger daughter, Rosni who
was playing outside from her house when
she reached the house, Sanju who was
standing near the door, picked her up and
slammed as a result she sustained serious
injuries. Thereafter, the aforesaid accused,
Sanjay flew away from the place of
occurrence with dire consequences, if
informed to police about the aforesaid
incident.

5. 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.

6. 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 323, 504, 506 IPC on 19.3.2020,
copy of the same is filed as Annexure No.7
to the affidavit, whereas he further submits
that on the charge-sheet, the learned
Magistrate
had
taken
cognizance
on
10.9.2020 and the case was numbered as
Case No.2212 of 2020. 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
summoned the applicants for facing trial.
Copy of the same is annexed as Annexure
No.8 to the affidavit.

7. Learned counsel for the applicants
further submits that by the order dated
10.9.2020 cognizance taken by the learned
Magistrate on printed proforma without
assigning any reason is abused of process
of law.

8. Learned counsel for the applicants
further submits that after submission of
charge sheet the applicants have been
summoned mechanically by order dated
10.9.2020 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
374 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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
applicant. The court below has summoned
the applicant through a printed order, which
is wholly illegal.

9. It is vehemently urged by learned
counsel
for
the
applicants
that
the
impugned
summoning
order
dated
10.9.2020 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 10.9.2020 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.

10. 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.

11. 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.

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

13. 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."

14. 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
7 All. Surendra Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
375
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.

15. 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.

16.

For
the
purposes
of
investigation, offences are divided into two
categories
"cognizable"
and
"noncognizable".
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.

17. 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
376 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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."

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 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.

19. 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.."

20. 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
7 All. Surendra Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
377
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."

21. 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
"अणभयुक्त
अंणकत
की
णगरफ्तारी मा0 उच्च न्यायायल द्वारा Crl. Writ
No. 19559/08 अंणकत बनाम राि में पाररत
आदेश णदनांक 5.11.08 द्वारा आरोप पत्र प्राप्त
होने तक स्थणगत 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."

22. In the case of Kavi Ahmad Vs.
State of U.P. and another passed in
Criminal Revision No. 3209 of 2010,
378 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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.

23. 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."

24. 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.

25. In light of the judgments referred to
above, it is explicitly clear that the order
dated 10.9.2020 passed by Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate-I, Mainpuri is cryptic and
does not stand the test of the law laid down
by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Consequently,
the cognizance order dated 10.9.2020 cannot
be legally sustained, as the Magistrate failed
to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him
resulting in miscarriage of justice.

26. Accordingly, the present Criminal
Misc. Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C succeeds
and is allowed. The impugned cognizance
order dated 10.9.2020 passed by Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Mainpuri is
hereby quashed in Case No.2212 of 2020
(State vs. Surendra Kumar), Crime No.086 of
2020 under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S.
Kuraoli District Mainpuri, is hereby quashed.

27. The Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate-I, Mainpuri 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.

28. With the above direction, the
application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
stands allowed.
7 All. Ram Charitra Tiwari & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
379
----------
(2021)07ILR A379
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 13.07.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. SAROJ YADAV, J.

U/S 482/378/407 Cr.P.C. No. 8523 of 2017

Ram Charitra Tiwari & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Rajendra Pratap Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Govt. Advocate, Mohd. Naeem, Puttu Lal
Mishra

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of criminal
procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent
power - The Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 -
Section 3 - penalty for giving or taking
dowry - giving or abetting to give dowry is
a punishable offence , Section 4 - mere
demand of 'dowry' is sufficient to bring
home the offence to an accused - Any
"demand" of money, property or valuable
security made from the bride or her
parents
or
other
relatives
by
the
bridegroom
or
his
parents
or
other
relatives or vice-versa would fall within
the mischief of 'dowry' under the Act
where such demand is not properly
referable to any legally recognised claim
and
is
consideration
of
marriage
-
Cognizance is taken of cases and not of
persons.(Para -10,14 )

F.I.R. lodged by opposite party no. 2
(complainant) against petitioners - allegation -
marriage of complainant's daughter to be
solemnized with (petitioner no. 3) - petitioners
demanded dowry in different forms - kept
pending solemnization of marriage - (petitioner
no. 3) and his father (petitioner no. 1) went
to
complainant's
house
and
demanded
additional
dowry
-
investigation
made
-
submitted charge sheet - Court finding sufficient
ground took cognizance against petitioners -
aggrieved with order of taking cognizance and
summoning petitioners - petition filed.

HELD:-Demand of dowry even before the
solemnization of marriage and even if marriage
has not taken place will be an offence . No
difference whether marriage was solemnized or
not
to
attract
the
provisions
of
Dowry
Prohibition Act . Demand of dowry even at the
negotiation stage of marriage will constitute
offence. While taking cognizance of the offence,
Magistrate or Court concerned is not obliged to
give detailed reasons for its satisfaction. No
valid ground for interference in the matter to
quash the charge sheet as well as summoning
order. (Para - 14)

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

List of Cases cited:

1. Pooja Saxena Vs St. & anr., 2010 (4) JCC
2780

2. S. Gopal Reddy Vs St. of A..P., (1996) 4 SCC

3. L.V. Jadhav Vs Shankarrao Abasaheb Pawar
& ors., 1983 AIR 1219

4. Bhushan Kumar Vs St. (NCT of Delhi), (2012)
5 SCC 424

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Saroj Yadav, J.)

1. On account of prevailing Covid-19
Pandemic, the case was heard through
video conferencing.

2. Heard Sri Rajendra Pratap Singh,
learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri
Anurag Singh Chauhan, learned Additional
Government Advocate appearing on behalf
of the State-respondent and perused the
record.