Judicial Officers' Conduct In Passing Orders On Printed Proforma Sans Application Of Judicial Mind 'Objectionable': Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court has observed 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 bench of Justice Shamim Ahmed observed thus while quashing the cognizance order of the Court of ASJ/POCSO-II Raibareli summoning a man accused of committing offences under Section 363, 366 I.P.C. and Sections 16 and 17 of POCSO Act, 2012.

The Court found that the Magistrate concerned had summoned the accused person on a printed proforma without assigning any reason while taking cognizance on the police report filed under Sections 173 of CrPC.

"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 a mechanical manner without application of judicial mind and without satisfying himself as to which offence were prima-facie 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," the Court remarked in its order passed on Tuesday.

The case in brief

The bench was essentially dealing with the plea of the POCSO accused who had moved the Court challenging the entire criminal proceedings, chargseheet and summoning order in the case against him on the ground that no offence wa made out against the him.

His counsel further submitted that the Magistrate had taken the cognizance on the printed proforma by filling the sections of IPC, dates and number and in the said proforma and thus, he challenged the cognizance/summoning order of the magistrate as being passed withoit any application of mind.

On the other hand, though the counsel for the state submitted that the material evidence and allegations against the applicant, the cognizable offence against the applicants is made out, but he did not deny the fact that the Magistrate had taken cognizance on the printed proforma.

Court's observations

Taking into account the impugned order, arguments of both the sides, the Court observed that cognizance of an offence on complaint is taken for the purpose of issuing process to the accuse and 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.

The Court further stressed that judicial 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 see to it that the orders do not not suffers from nonapplication of judicial mind while taking cognizance of the offence.

In this regard, the Court relied upon the rulings of the Apex Court wherein it was held that the magsitrate has to take cognizance of an offence after application of judicial mind and by reasoned order and not in mechanical manner.

The Court also relied upon the Allahbad High Court's ruling in the case of Abdul Rasheed and others Vs. State of U.P. and another 2010 (3) JIC 761 (All), wherein it was observed that 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. In this very case, such tendency was deprecated.

Taking into account the abovementioned dicsussion, the Court found the order dated 08.02.2019 passed by the ASJ/POCSOII,Raibareli as cryptic as it held that the same did not stand the test of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court,

Consequently, the same was set quashed and the plea was lloawe. Further, the matter was remitted back to ASJ/POCSO-II Raibareli directing him to decide afresh the issue for taking cognizance and summoning the applicants and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law keeping in view the observations made by the Court within a period of two months.

Appearances

Counsel for Applicant: Siddharth Shankar Dubey

Counsel for Opposite Party: G.A

Case title - Krishna Kumar (As Per Fir And The Charge Sheet Krishna Kumar Naayi ) And Others vs. State Of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy.Home And 3 Others [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 677 of 2023]

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 37

Click Here To Read/Download Order