Patna High Court Quashes Cognizance Order Passed On Printed Proforma, Says Judicial Orders Can't Be Mechanical
The Patna High Court has quashed a Magistrate's cognizance order in a criminal case after finding that it had been passed by merely filling in the blanks on a printed proforma, and did not reflect application of judicial mind. Justice Chandra Shekhar Jha observed that a Magistrate is not required to pass a detailed reasoned order at the stage of taking cognizance, but the order must reflect...
The Patna High Court has quashed a Magistrate's cognizance order in a criminal case after finding that it had been passed by merely filling in the blanks on a printed proforma, and did not reflect application of judicial mind.
Justice Chandra Shekhar Jha observed that a Magistrate is not required to pass a detailed reasoned order at the stage of taking cognizance, but the order must reflect that the “Magistrate had applied his mind to the facts as well as law applicable thereto.”
“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. Such 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,” the Court said.
The court observed that taking cognizance and summoning an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter, and found that the Magistrate had passed the impugned order in a “mechanical manner without application of judicial mind and without satisfying himself as to which offences were prima-facie being made out against the applicant on the basis of the allegations made by the complainant.” The court found the order “against the settled judicial norms”.
The Patna High Court quashed the impugned order dated October 19, 2016 and directed the trial court to pass a fresh order supplying reasons in accordance with law, if the matter is still pending before it.
In the present case, the petitioner had sought quashing of the cognizance order passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-IV, Katihar, in connection with a case registered for offences under Sections 420, 409 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The FIR had been lodged on the complaint of an Assistant Godown Manager of the State Food Corporation, Katihar, against the petitioner.
Before the High Court, the petitioner's counsel contended that the cognizance order was not sustainable in the eyes of law as it had been passed on a printed proforma without application of judicial mind.
Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Darshan Singh Ram Kishan v State of Maharashtra, (1971) 2 SCC 654, the High Court reiterated that “the process of taking cognizance does not involve any formal action, but it occurs as soon as the Magistrate applies his mind to the allegations and, thereafter, takes judicial notice of the offence.”
The plea was allowed.
Case: Gauri Shankar Paswan Gautam Paswan v State of Bihar,
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.4172 of 2019