Trademark Pirates Face Legal Wrath: Delhi HC Enforces Radio Mirchi’s IP Rights Swiftly Madras High Court Upholds Extended Adjudication Period Under Customs Act Amid Allegations of Systemic Lapses Disputes Over Religious Office Will Be Consolidated for Efficient Adjudication, Holds Karnataka High Court Motive Alone, Without Corroborative Evidence, Insufficient for Conviction : High Court Acquits Accused in 1993 Murder Case Himachal Pradesh HC Criticizes State for Delays: Orders Timely Action on Employee Grievances Calls for Pragmatic Approach to Desertion and Cruelty in Divorce Cases: Calcutta High Court Orders Fresh Trial Juvenile Tried as Adult: Bombay High Court Validates JJB Decision, Modifies Sentence to 7 Years Retrospective Application of Amended Rules for Redeployment Declared Invalid: Orissa High Court NDPS Act Leaves No Room for Leniency: HC Requires Substantial Proof of Innocence for Bail No Protection Without Performance: MP High Court Denies Relief Under Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act Delays in processing applications for premature release cannot deprive convicts of interim relief: Karnataka High Court Grants 90-Day Parole Listing All Appeals Arising From A Common Judgment Before The Same Bench Avoids Contradictory Rulings: Full Bench of the Patna High Court. Age Claims in Borderline Cases Demand Scrutiny: Madhya Pradesh HC on Juvenile Justice Act Bishop Garden Not Available for Partition Due to Legal Quietus on Declaration Suit: Madras High Court Exclusion of Certain Heirs Alone Does Not Make a Will Suspicious: Kerala High Court Upholds Validity of Will Proof of Delivery Was Never Requested, Nor Was it a Payment Precondition: Delhi High Court Held Courier Firm Entitled to Payment Despite Non-Delivery Allegations Widowed Daughter Eligible for Compassionate Appointment under BSNL Scheme: Allahabad High Court Brutality of an Offence Does Not Dispense With Legal Proof: Supreme Court Overturns Life Imprisonment of Two Accused Marumakkathayam Law | Partition Is An Act By Which The Nature Of The Property Is Changed, Reflecting An Alteration In Ownership: Supreme Court Motor Accident Claim | Compensation Must Aim To Restore, As Far As Possible, What Has Been Irretrievably Lost: Supreme Court Awards Rs. 1.02 Crore Personal Criticism Of Judges Or Recording Findings On Their Conduct In Judgments Must Be Avoided: Supreme Court Efficiency In Arbitral Proceedings Is Integral To Effective Dispute Resolution. Courts Must Ensure That Arbitral Processes Reach Their Logical End: Supreme Court Onus Lies On The Propounder To Remove All Suspicious Circumstances Surrounding A Will To The Satisfaction Of The Court: Calcutta High Court Deeds of Gift Not Governed by Section 22-B of Registration Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Testimony Of  Injured Witness Carries A Built-In Guarantee Of Truthfulness: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Conviction for Attempted Murder POCSO | Conviction Cannot Be Sustained Without Conclusive Proof Of Minority - Burden Lies On The Prosecution: Telangana High Court Credible Eyewitness Account, Supported By Forensic Corroboration, Creates An Unassailable Chain Of Proof That Withstands Scrutiny: Punjab and Haryana High Court Jammu & Kashmir High Court Grants Bail to Schizophrenic Mother Accused of Murdering Infant Son

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

 

Similar News