Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:60451 Court No. - 52 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1690 of 2021 Applicant :- Kamdeo Singh And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Adya Prasad Tewari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J. Case called out in the revised list. No one has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no.2. As per office report dated 02.03.2023, notice upon opposite party no.2 has been served personally. Accordingly, notice upon opposite party no.2 is sufficient. However, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State are present. On 22.01.2022, the following order was passed in the matter:- "It is submitted by Mr. A.P. Tewari, learned counsel for the applicants, that the order taking cognizance and issuing process dated 02.11.2020 has been passed on a printed proforma, with blanks filled up. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that a perusal of the order shows that it has been passed without application of mind, resulting in vitiation of proceedings based on it. Issue notice. Notice is made returnable on 03.03.2021. List in the additional cause list on 03.03.2021, along with a report regarding service. Till the next date of listing, further proceedings in Criminal Case No. 6868 of 2020, State v. Kamdeo Singh and others (arising out of Case Crime No. 116 of 2020), under Sections 143, 352, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station - Gahmar, District - Ghazipur, pending in the court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghazipur, shall remain stayed." Heard Mr. Adya Prasad Tewari, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash charge-sheet dated 04.07.2020 as well as entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 6868 of 2020 (State Vs. Kamdeo Singh and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 116 of 2020, under Sections 143, 352, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Gahmar, District Ghazipur, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghazipur and also to quash the summoning order dated 02.11.2020 passed in the aforesaid case. The objection raised by counsel for the applicant is that impugned order has been passed without application of mind on a printed format and notice is vague and ambiguous, therefore, proceeding on the basis of said notice is a nullity. Reliance has been placed on a number of decisions of this Court in the case of Ranjeet Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2002 (45) ACC page 627. He submits that the legal position is that the cognizance/ summoning order cannot be passed in printed proforma to fill up the blanks. A copy of the cognizance/summoning order has been annexed as annexure no.5 to the affidavit filed in support of this application. Similar view has been expressed in the case of Aurangzeb and others State of U.P. and another reported in 2004 (50) ACC page 734. Paragraph of the said decision is quoted below: "It is submitted that notice under challenge is void and proceedings against the applicants are nullity without jurisdiction as substance of information received as required is incomplete, vague and ambiguous and notice is only defective. It is also submitted on report of police on 21.6.2004, a notice under Section 111 Cr.P.C. to initiate proceedings under Sections 107/116 Cr.P.C. is served upon the applicants vide Annexure-1 and the impugned notice does not fulfil the requirements of mandatory provisions of Section 111 Cr.P.C., thus the notice is null and void and the proceedings before the learned Magistrate are a nullity and the impugned notice is on a printed proforma in which gaps are filled and the substances of information received as set forth is wholly incomplete, vague and ambiguous. It is further submitted that the learned Magistrate (S.D.M.) has no jurisdiction or authority to proceed on the basis of this void notice and he has placed reliance in the case of Ranjeet Kumar and others V. State of U.P. and others." Similar view has also been taken by the Single Bench of this Court in the case of Shiv Kant Tripathi Versus State of U.P. & Another reported in 2006 (1) UPCrR. In the present case the learned A.C.J.M., Ghazipur has thrown the mandatory provisions of Sec.110/111 of the Code to the winds and has prepared a printed proforma. The learned Magistrate has also not recorded his opinion that there existed sufficient ground to take action under the provisions of Sec.107 of the Code. In view of the above, the order of cognizance i.e. summoning order dated 02.11.2020 passed by learned A.C.J.M., Ghazipur is hereby quashed and application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is accordingly partly allowed. The learned Magistrate is directed to pass fresh cognizance order after applying the judicial mind. With the above observations, the application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is finally disposed of. Order Date :- 22.4.2025 Abhishek Singh Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad