CHAMAN SINGH AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                 APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 3757 of 2026

Chaman Singh And 2 Others
                                                            .....Applicant(s)
                                   Versus

State of U.P. and Another
                                                                .....Opposite
                                                                      Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)      : Santosh Kumar Singh, Vishal Kumar
                                Sonkar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 84
                      HON'BLE SANJIV KUMAR, J.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A for the State.

2. This application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been filed by the
applicants to quash charge-sheet dated 01.07.2015, cognizance and
summoning order dated 17.06.2016 as well as entire proceedings of Case
No. 325 of 2021 (Old Case No.685 of 2016), arising out of Case Crime No.
274 of 2014, under Sections 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Rajabpur,
District Amroha, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Amroha.

3. It is submitted on behalf of the applicants that the cognizance order has
been passed in a mechanical manner. The order is on a printed proforma, in
which only date, Sections and names of the accused are mentioned.
Therefore, at the time of taking cognizance and summoning the accused, the
learned Trial Court did not apply its judicial mind. The order is cryptic in
nature and appears to have been passed merely by filling the date, Sections
and names of the accused on a printed proforma. Accordingly, the impugned
cognizance/summoning order is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

4. In this regard, I have perused the certified copy of the impugned order
dated 17.06.2016, which shows that the cognizance and summoning order is
on a typed proforma order, wherein date, Sections and names of accused
have been filled in the blanks.

5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the aforesaid prayer.
                                                                NA528 No. 3757 of 2026
                                   2

6. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgement of Lalankumar Singh vs State
of Maharashtra; 2022 SCC Online SC 1383 has observed in para 38 that:-

     "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".

7. Similarly, the Apex Court in the case of Sunil Bharti Mittal vs Central
Bureau of Investigation; 2010(11) SCC 125 observed in para 53 which
reads as under:-

     "53. However, the words "sufficient ground for proceeding" appearing in
     Section 204 are of immene 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."

8. Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the judgement of Satya Pal vs State of
U.P. and another; 2023 (4) ADJ 345 (LB), held that signing on printed
proforma has no cognizance at all as the same is without application of mind
and quashed the cognizance order. The relevant paragraph no. 21 of the
Judgement is quoted as under:-

     "21. 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."
                                                               NA528 No. 3757 of 2026
                                   3


9. This Court had an occasion to deal with such issue in Application u/s 482
No. 26416 of 2021 (Smt. Akali Devi and others vs. State of U.P. and
another) and decided on 26.9.2023, observing that practice of taking
cognizance on printed proforma on the part of the Magistrate is absolutely
erroneous because that does not show application of his mind on the material
collected during investigation. Paragraph-8 of the aforesaid judgement dated
26.9.2023 reads as under:-

     "8. In view of above legal position, this Court is of the view that merely
     signing and filling the date and case crime no. in printed proforma is
     absolutely non-application of mind because the cognizance order must
     reflect the prima facie opinion of the learned Magistrate."

10. It also took note of Abdul Rasheed Vs. State of U.P., 2010 SCC
OnLine All 2819, wherein it was said that:-

     "judicial orders cannot be allowed to be passed in a mechanical manner
     either by filling in blank on a printed performa or by affixing a
     readymade seal etc. of the order on a plain paper. Such a 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".

11. In view of the above, prima facie, it appears that the impugned
cognizance/ summoning order is passed in mechanical and cryptic manner
without application of judicial mind, therefore, the impugned order dated
17.06.2016 is not sustainable in the eye of law.

12. Considering the above-stated facts and law as referred above, it is
apparent that there is nothing to indicate that the said impugned order has
been passed after applying judicial mind and thus, the impugned summoning
order dated 17.06.2016 is not sustainable and, accordingly, the impugned
summoning order dated 17.06.2016 is, hereby, set aside and Trial Court is
directed to pass order afresh, in accordance with law.

13. Accordingly, the instant application is partly allowed.

14. Let a copy of this order be send to the learned Trial Court for
                                                                        NA528 No. 3757 of 2026
                                                                   4


                                    information and necessary action.




                                                                         (Sanjiv Kumar,J.)
                                    February 18, 2026
                                    Subham




Digitally signed by :-
SUBHAM KUSHWAHA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad