Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:89342 Court No. - 87 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 829 of 2025 Applicant :- Babu And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Keshari Nath Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J. 1. Heard Sri K.N. Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Chandra Shekhar Saran, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record. 2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant praying for quashing charge sheet dated 08.08.2021, cognizance order dated 07.02.2022 as well as the entire proceedings of Case No.289 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime No.202 of 2021 (State vs. Babu and another) under Section 420, 406, 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station-Dilari, District-Moradabad pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Thakurdwara, District-Moradabad. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that summoning order issued on 07.02.2022 is a cyclostyled order. He contended that the summoning order is an order without application of mind on a printed proforma. It is argued that from perusal of the order dated 07.02.2022, it is apparent that the same is on a printed proforma in which only the next date for appearance of the accused has been filled, whereas all the other contents of the order are previously printed. It is argued that the same clearly demonstrates that there has been total non application of mind by the concerned trial court and the order taking cognizance and summoning the accused is thus bad in the eyes of law. To buttress his argument, he has placed reliance on a judgment passed by this Court in the matter of Pankaj Jaiswal vs. State of U.P. and another, (2021) 0 Supreme (All) 491. He further submitted that his case is squarely covered by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of M/s Pepsi Foods Ltd and another vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and others, 1998(5) SCC 749. 4. Learned counsel for the State though opposed the prayer for quashing but could not dispute the fact that the order taking cognizance and summoning the accused dated 07.02.2022 is on a printed proforma with blank space for the next date, which has been filled up manually. 5. Time and again, it has been held that orders of printed proforma cannot be passed and the said system of passing such orders have been deprecated. 6. In the case of Amit Jani vs. State of U.P. and others, (2020) 5 ADJ 1, a Division Bench of this Court has held as follows:- "The passing of orders in printed proforma/cyclostyled formats have been deprecated by various High Courts including this court as they do not reflect application of mind. Reference is made to the following judgments:- 1. 2000 ILR (Kar) 4773, Vijaya Bank Vs. State. 2. 2010(9) ADJ 594, Abdul Rasheed Vs. State of U.P. & another. 3. 2009 (67) ACC 532, Ankit Vs. State of U.P. & another. 4. 2010 (3) ADJ 622, Saurabh Dewana Vs. State of U.P." 7. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and without going into the merits of the case as of now, the order dated 07.02.2022 is hereby set aside. 8. The present application is allowed to the aforesaid extent. 9. The matter is remanded back to the trial court concerned to pass fresh order in accordance with law within a period of three weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. Order Date :- 26.5.2025 Manish Himwan Digitally signed by :- MANISH HIMWAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad