Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 3624 (UTT)

Aashirwad v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

C482/1601/2016 · 2025-08-01

Alok Mahra

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:UHC:6806 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS C482 No.1601 of 2016 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. G.C. Lakhchaura, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. V. N. Maulekhi, learned DAG for the State. 3. Mr. Jitendra Chaudhary, learned counsel for the private respondent. 4. The criminal misc. application has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing and setting aside the charge sheet dated 21.05.2016, cognizance order dated 10.06.2016, as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.2143 of 2016, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the concerned Judicial Magistrate did not apply his mind before passing the impugned order; it is a cyclostyled order. 7. From the perusal of the record, it is clear that th information was given by the private respondent to P.S. Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar on 24.11.2015 against the applicant; accordingly, an FIR No.280 of 2015 was lodged. After investigation charge-sheet was submitted, accordingly, the concerned Judicial Magistrate took the cognizance on 10.06.2016, whereby 2025:UHC:6806 concerned Magistrate even could not mention that for what offence and under which Section the applicant is being summoned to face the trial. 8. From the perusal of the cognizance order dated 10.06.2016, it is clear that the concerned Judicial Magistrate did not apply his mind before taking cognizance; that, it is a cyclostyled order, where only date was mentioned while the name of parties and sections were not mentioned, which shows that the concerned Magistrate even did not peruse the evidence collected during the investigation; that, he simply mentioned the date in the cognizance order, which is not proper. 8. Accordingly, impugned cognizance order dated 10.06.2016 is liable to be set aside and is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar for decision afresh. 9. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of. (Alok Mahra, J.) 01.08.2025 BS BALWANT SINGH Digitally signed by BALWANT SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=fbbd191c8bdb8b16e8ca7937deaf72a17c02fe2eacbf 28cdf4ba7ce8640c5820, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=04E141DF4614F9A4D5F48346EB553DE5185F4 18755DC00A7A13C14A680C3FA90, cn=BALWANT SINGH Date: 2025.08.04 17:35:51 +05'30'