Judicial orders on printed proforma without application of mind are unsustainable and violate settled legal norms.

The petitioner, a teacher, was accused of abusing the informant’s wife (a Ward Member) by her caste name and physically assaulting her and the informant on 29.09.2016 following a dispute over school fund expenditures.

Consequently, Phulparas P.S. Case No. 329 of 2016 was registered.

Following the police report, the Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, SC & ST Act, Madhubani, passed an order dated 19.09.2018 taking cognizance of offences under Sections 323 and 504 of the IPC and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(2)(va) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

The petitioner challenged this order primarily on the ground that it was passed on a printed proforma by merely filling in blanks.

Whether an order of cognizance passed by filling in blanks on a printed proforma constitutes a valid application of judicial mind.

Whether the impugned order dated 19.09.2018 is sustainable under the settled judicial norms of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The court relied on Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding the modes of taking cognizance.

It further applied the principle established in Darshan Singh Ram Kishan v. State of Maharashtra (1971) 2 SCC 654, which mandates that cognizance occurs only when a Magistrate applies their mind to the suspected commission of an offence.

The court underscored the judicial doctrine that summoning an accused is a serious matter requiring the reflection of legal and factual application in the order, prohibiting mechanical or "automatic" judicial actions.

The Court observed that while a Magistrate is not required to pass a detailed or exhaustive reasoned order at the stage of cognizance, the order must not be mechanical.

Upon reviewing the impugned order, the Court found it was passed on a "typed proforma" by "filling up the blanks".

This practice was deprecated as it indicated a total lack of application of judicial mind to the specific facts of the case and the law applicable.

The Court reasoned that since the summoning of an accused is a significant step in criminal law, the failure to satisfy judicial norms or assign any reason for the prima-facie satisfaction of the offence renders the order legally infirm.

The petition was allowed, and the impugned order dated 19.09.2018 was quashed.

The trial court was directed to pass a fresh order with reasons in accordance with the law, provided the matter remains pending.

The Court further directed that the practice of using printed proformas for judicial orders must be stopped forthwith.