"No 'Printed Proforma' While Passing Judicial Orders": Allahabad High Court Asks District Judges In UP To Inform Judicial Officers

The Bench of Justice Shamim Ahmed directed thus while observing that the conduct of the judicial officers in passing orders on printed proforma by filling up the blanks without application of judicial mind is objectionable and deserves to be deprecated.

Earlier this year, a Single Bench of Justice Manju Rani Chauhan in an application filed under Section 482 of CrPC for quashing of a summoning order mechanically passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra, on a printed proforma had observed thus:

"A Judge acts like a God, he/she should not make mistakes due to haste or excess of work. How will a normal man get justice when a judge makes a mistake because of the excess of his/ her work?"

The case before the Court

The Court was dealing with a prayer to quash an FIR registered under Section 406, 420, and 506 IPC arising out of a property dispute.

The Counsel for the applicant drew the attention of the Court to the charge sheet submitted by the Investigating Officer on which the Magistrate had taken cognizance and the case was numbered.

It was submitted that the cognizance had been taken on the printed proforma by filling the sections of IPC, dates, and number and that in the said proforma, it was argued, the Magistrate, without assigning any reason, had summoned the applicants for facing trial.

Further asserting that the court below had summoned the applicant through a printed order, which is wholly illegal, the counsel for the applicant submitted the court below, while summoning the applicants did not take into consideration the material placed before the trial court along with charge sheet.

The question before the Court

The main issue for consideration before this Court was that - whether the Magistrate may summon the accused person on a printed proforma without assigning any reason and take cognizance of the police report filed under Sections 173 of Cr.P.C.

Court's observations

At the outset, the Court noted that the cognizance of an offence on the complaint is taken for the purpose of issuing process to the accused and since, it is a process of taking judicial notice of certain facts which constitute an offence, the Court added, there has to be the application of mind as to whether the material collected by the Investigating Officer results in sufficient grounds to proceed further and would constitute a violation of law so as to call a person to appear before the criminal court to face trial.

Further referring to the cases of Kavi Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. and another passed in Criminal Revision No. 3209 of 2010 & Abdul Rasheed and others Vs. State of U.P. and another 2010 (3) JIC 761 (All) the Court observed thus:

"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."

In this backdrop, the Court opined that in the instant case, the order passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar was cryptic and didn't stand the test of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court.

Consequently, the cognizance order was thereby quashed and the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar, was directed to decide afresh the issue for taking cognizance and summoning the applicant and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of two months.

Case title - Pankaj Jaiswal v. State of U.P. and Another

Click Here To Download Order

Read Order