MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Allahabad High Court Quashes Cognizance Order Issued on Printed Proforma, Emphasizes Judicial Application of Mind

28 October 2024 1:23 PM

By: Deepak Kumar


High Court underscores the importance of non-mechanical issuance of cognizance orders under Section 190 Cr.P.C.
In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has set aside a cognizance order issued by the Judicial Magistrate, Azamgarh, citing the mechanical nature of the order which was prepared using a printed proforma. The decision, delivered by Hon’ble Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi, highlights the necessity for judicial application of mind in the issuance of such orders to prevent abuse of the judicial process.
The case originated from an FIR filed by Smt. Vidyawati Devi against six individuals, including the applicant Roshan Lal Alias Roshan Rajbhar, alleging offenses under Sections 434 and 506 of the IPC. The allegations pertained to dismantling boundary marks on her property and issuing threats, following a demarcation under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
Judicial Application of Mind: The court criticized the issuance of the cognizance order on a printed proforma, emphasizing that judicial orders, including those taking cognizance, must reflect a thoughtful consideration of the case materials. “A cognizance order must not be issued mechanically but should demonstrate the Magistrate’s application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case,” stated Justice Rizvi. The court found that the impugned order lacked such judicial scrutiny.
Justice Rizvi reiterated that the process of taking cognizance involves the Magistrate applying their mind to the allegations and evidence presented. Citing several Supreme Court judgments, including Darshan Singh Ram Kishan v. State of Maharashtra and Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation, the court underscored that cognizance is taken when a Magistrate considers the allegations sufficient to constitute an offense and decides to initiate proceedings.
The court noted, “The use of a printed proforma for passing judicial orders is indicative of non-application of judicial mind and undermines the integrity of the judicial process.”
Justice Rizvi observed, “It is imperative that a Magistrate, when taking cognizance of an offense, must apply their mind to the material on record and ensure that the order reflects a judicious consideration of the case.”
The Allahabad High Court’s decision to quash the cognizance order serves as a crucial reminder of the importance of judicial diligence and the non-mechanical issuance of orders. By setting aside the order, the court has reinforced the principle that judicial processes must be conducted with careful consideration to uphold justice and prevent abuse of the legal system. The Magistrate has been directed to reconsider the charge-sheet and issue a fresh order in accordance with the law.

Date of Decision:7th May 2024
Roshan Lal Alias Roshan Rajbhar And Others vs. State of U.P. and Another

 

Latest Legal News