The Allahabad High Court has reaffirmed that the issuance of process in criminal cases is not a ministerial act but a judicial function requiring deliberate application of mind. A mechanical, proforma-based cognizance order devoid of reasoning violates fundamental principles of criminal procedure and cannot stand.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicants, Maya Pandey and two others, seek quashing of the criminal proceedings initiated against them in Case No. 818 of 2019 (State vs. Jiut Pandey and others), arising out of FIR No. 137 of 2019 registered at Police Station Balua, District Chandauli. The case involves allegations under Sections 323, 325, 504, and 506 IPC relating to an alleged assault and criminal intimidation.
Key Facts
- FIR No. 137 of 2019 was registered on 12.04.2019
- Charge sheet was filed on 26.07.2019
- Cognizance order was passed on 17.08.2019
- Summoning order was issued on 28.08.2019
- The applicants were named as accused in both orders
- The cognizance and summoning orders were issued on pre-printed proforma templates
- No reasons were recorded in either order to justify the formation of a prima facie case
- The orders merely listed the date, sections of IPC, and names of accused, with no analysis of evidence or legal sufficiency
Procedural History
- 12.04.2019: FIR No. 137 of 2019 registered at PS Balua
- 26.07.2019: Charge sheet filed before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandauli
- 17.08.2019: Cognizance order passed on printed proforma, no reasons recorded
- 28.08.2019: Summoning order issued on identical proforma, no judicial reasoning
- 26.09.2023: High Court delivered judgment in Smt. Akali Devi v. State of U.P. (Application u/s 482 CrPC No. 26416 of 2021), condemning proforma orders
- 13.05.2026: Present application under Section 528 BNSS filed before Allahabad High Court seeking quashing of orders
The Parties' Positions
Applicants: Argued that the cognizance and summoning orders were mechanically passed on pre-printed forms without any application of judicial mind. They relied on Supreme Court precedents and a coordinate bench judgment of the Allahabad High Court to contend that such orders are void ab initio.
Respondent (State): Did not dispute the form of the orders but submitted that the allegations in the FIR and charge sheet were sufficient to warrant trial. No counter-affidavit or detailed legal submission was filed to defend the procedural irregularity.
Relief Sought
The applicants sought quashing of:
- The charge sheet dated 26.07.2019
- The cognizance order dated 17.08.2019
- The summoning order dated 28.08.2019
- The entire criminal proceedings in Case No. 818 of 2019
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a cognizance and summoning order passed on a printed proforma, without any reasoning or indication of judicial application of mind, satisfies the requirements of Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the constitutional mandate of fair procedure.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The applicants relied on Lalankumar Singh v. State of Maharashtra (2022 SCC Online SC 1383), where the Supreme Court held that the Magistrate must form an opinion on the existence of sufficient grounds for proceeding and record that opinion in the order. They cited Sunil Bharti Mittal v. CBI (2010) 11 SCC 125, emphasizing that the phrase "sufficient ground for proceeding" demands a reasoned conclusion, even if brief. They further relied on Satya Pal v. State of U.P. (2023 ADJ 345) and Smt. Akali Devi v. State of U.P. (26.09.2023), both from the Allahabad High Court, which explicitly held that signing proforma orders without reasoning is a violation of judicial norms and renders the order unsustainable. They argued that the absence of any reasoning transforms the order into a nullity.
For the Respondent/State
The State did not file a detailed counter-argument. The learned Additional Government Advocate merely opposed the prayer without challenging the factual assertion that the orders were on proforma or disputing the legal precedents cited. No attempt was made to justify the absence of reasoning or to demonstrate that judicial mind was applied.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a thorough review of binding precedents from the Supreme Court and its own coordinate benches. It emphasized that Section 204 CrPC mandates that the Magistrate must be satisfied that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. This satisfaction cannot be presumed; it must be articulated.
"The order of issuance of process is not an empty formality. The Magistrate is required to apply his mind as to whether sufficient ground for proceeding exists in the case or not. The formation of such an opinion is required to be stated in the order itself."
The Court noted that the impugned orders contained no analysis of the FIR, no reference to specific evidence, no evaluation of the prima facie case, and no legal reasoning. The fact that the orders were on a printed proforma, with only blanks filled in, demonstrated a mechanical and routine approach inconsistent with judicial responsibility.
The Court further cited Abdul Rasheed v. State of U.P. (2010 SCC OnLine All 2819), which condemned the practice of passing judicial orders through pre-printed forms or affixed seals as contrary to settled judicial norms. The Court observed that such practices erode public confidence in the judiciary and violate the principle of audi alteram partem.
It held that the absence of reasoning is not a mere procedural lapse but a substantive defect that vitiates the order. The Court rejected the notion that brevity excuses absence of reasoning, clarifying that while detailed reasons are not mandatory, the order must reflect that the Magistrate had applied his mind.
The Verdict
The application was partly allowed. The cognizance order dated 17.08.2019 and the summoning order dated 28.08.2019 were set aside. The Trial Court is directed to pass a fresh cognizance and summoning order in accordance with law, after applying judicial mind and recording reasons indicating a prima facie case. The charge sheet is not quashed. The proceedings shall continue only upon compliance with this direction.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Judicial Orders Cannot Be Proforma
- Practitioners must challenge any cognizance or summoning order that lacks reasoning, regardless of the seriousness of the offence
- A proforma order, even if signed by a Magistrate, is void if it contains no expression of judicial opinion
- Applications under Section 482 CrPC or Section 528 BNSS are viable remedies to quash such orders
Burden of Justification Lies with the Court, Not the Accused
- The prosecution cannot cure a defective cognizance order by later submitting evidence
- The Magistrate’s duty to apply mind is non-delegable and must be discharged at the threshold stage
- Courts must refuse to entertain proceedings initiated by mechanically passed orders, even if the underlying allegations appear serious
Procedural Rigour Is Non-Negotiable
- All judicial officers must be reminded that signing proforma orders is not merely an error - it is a dereliction of duty
- High Courts must issue administrative directions to district judiciary to cease use of proforma orders for cognizance and summoning
- Defence counsel should routinely request certified copies of cognizance orders to verify compliance with Lalankumar Singh and Sunil Bharti Mittal
