Issuing Summons On Printed Proforma After Passing Hand Written Cognizance Order On Chargesheet Isn't Invalid: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has observed that if the order of taking cognizance has been passed on the first page of the charge-sheet in the hand writing not by filling up the proforma then the summoning order carried on the order-sheet on printed proforma won't be invalid.
The bench of Justice Mohd. Aslam clarified that if after taking cognizance of the police charge sheet by way of a written order, summons is issued on the printed proforma, then it cannot be said that the cognizance order is a proforma order.
The Court was dealing with a Section 482 CrPC plea filed by the applicants seeking to quash the cognizance order passed by the Additional Civil Judge (SD)/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, J.P. Nagar.
Essentially, the cognizance was taken against the applicants/accused on the basis of charge-sheet submitted by police and summons was issued to them for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and section ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act.
It was their primary submisison that since cognizance was taken on the chargesheet and later on it was drawn on the printed proforma of the order sheet, therefore, it can be said that the cognizance was taken on printed proforma, which is impermissable in law.
Discarding their submisison that it was a cognizance order passed on the proform, the Court observed thus:
"...the order of taking cognizance was passed on the first page of the charge-sheet in the hand writing not by filling up the proforma and the summoning order carried on the order-sheet on printed proforma by itself cannot be said that the cognizance order was passed on printed proforma...In this case as the cognizance order was passed on the chargesheet and later on carried out on the order sheet, therefore, it cannot be said that the cognizance order was carried out on the printed proforma, therefore, it cannot be said that the order for taking cognizance was passed on printed proforma."
The case in brief
Complainant/Anushka aka Bharti Singh got married to one Amitesh Singh on 6 February 2017. Allegedly, in this marriage, her parents incurred an amount of Rs.20 lacs including household articles and a cheque of Rs.1,51,000/-. However, even after this, her husband, father-in-law, motherin-law, (Jeth), (Jethani) were not pleased with the dowry given in her marriage.
Immediately after the marriage, they started demanding Rs.10 lacs cash in dowry and her husband also demanded that Car which was given in her marriage and registered in her name be transferred in the name of her husband.
The opposite party no.2/complainant tried to convince them, but they didn't not agree and started harassing her financially, mentally and physically and assaulting her due to non-fulfilment of the demand of dowry.
Soon her husband left her and therefore, she also went to her paternal home. One day her in-laws came there and beat her up. A complaint was lodged at Mahila Police Station Amroha, however, no action was taken.
Thereafter, she moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amroha and on the order of the court, the first information report was lodged.
Having perused the first information report, injury report and the statement of the informant and witnesses, the Court noted that prima-facie case punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act was made out against the applicants. Therefore, their 482 CrPC plea was dismissed.
Case Title - Smt. Kiran Kunwar And 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 15581 of 2019]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 378