Use Of Printed-Proforma Summoning Orders Is ‘Unwarranted And Impermissible’ | Allahabad High Court Dismisses Pleas Against Non-Speaking Cognizance Orders
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Single Bench of Justice Vinod Diwakar, dismissed a batch of criminal applications under Section 482 Cr.P.C., refusing to quash cognizance and summoning orders passed by trial courts using printed-proforma formats. The Court held that the summoning orders, though not accompanied by detailed reasons, did not suffer from any legal infirmity. The Court further directed that the use of pre-typed or rubber-stamped summoning orders must cease with immediate effect and ordered dissemination of the judgment across the State’s subordinate judiciary for strict compliance.
The applicants approached the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking quashing of summoning orders issued in Criminal Case No. 5293 of 2018, pending before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Deoria. The applications challenged the legality of the summoning orders passed by the Magistrate on 07.12.2018, alleging that the orders were issued mechanically, without the application of judicial mind, and based solely on printed templates with hand-filled names and sections.
A First Information Report was registered as Crime Case No. 147 dated 29.05.2016 under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, and 447 IPC read with Section 3/4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. The allegations included encroachment on government land, threats to life, and causing injuries. The FIR named Neeraj Shai, Manoj Sahi, Hemant Sahi, Abhirendra Sahi, and Beeru. Following an investigation, the police filed a charge sheet on 17.06.2016 against all accused except Beeru, who was exonerated. The trial court took cognizance on 07.12.2018.
The core contention of the applicants was that the order was issued on a pre-printed format with minimal input from the judge and lacked a reasoned approach. Asserting that the summoning order lacked application of mind and contravened settled law, the applicants sought its quashing along with the charge sheet.
To address the recurring issue of mechanical issuance of summoning orders, the Court appointed Shri Vimlendu Tripathi as Amicus Curiae. He presented a compilation of relevant judgments and written arguments, which were placed on record.
The Court examined a long list of precedent-setting cases from both the Supreme Court and various benches of the Allahabad High Court. It noted a recurring pattern in criminal proceedings where trial courts issued summoning orders without complying with the judicial requirement of mind application. The applicants’ counsel relied on cases like Satendra Kumar Antil v. CBI and Lalankumar Singh v. State of Maharashtra to argue against mechanical summoning.
It was brought to the Court’s attention that multiple Benches had, in similar matters, set aside summoning orders issued on pre-drafted formats, remanding matters for fresh adjudication. These included Awadh Kumar v. State of U.P., Rupesh v. State of U.P., and Hemant Kumar v. State of U.P. The Bench observed that such orders undermine judicial discipline and lead to unnecessary litigation.
The Court also reviewed judgments where the High Court had directed judicial officers to refrain from using pre-typed formats and, in some cases, had ordered their seizure and destruction. The Court noted that the judiciary’s over-reliance on clerical staff and legacy procedures had contributed to the persistence of this issue.
Upon detailed examination of the statutory framework under Sections 190, 200–203, and 207–209 Cr.P.C., the Court reviewed legal interpretations of “taking cognizance.” It analyzed authoritative rulings such as Bhushan Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), Fakhruddin Ahmad v. State of Uttaranchal, Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda, and Sunil Bharti Mittal v. CBI. These judgments clarified that while a detailed order is not mandatory at the cognizance stage, the application of judicial mind is imperative.
The Court acknowledged that trial courts are overburdened and that requiring elaborate reasoning at preliminary stages may hinder judicial efficiency. However, it stated that this does not justify circumventing the need for individualized and lawful application of mind.
“The use of pre-printed rubber stamps or pre-typed proformas creates a disturbing impression that the Magistrate has not even perused the case file, let alone applied judicial mind.”
The Court observed that while the contents of a rubber-stamped format may be legally correct, their mechanical application without independent reasoning is impermissible: “The trial courts frequently pass summoning orders in contravention of authoritative binding judgments... mechanically and arbitrarily, often by inserting case details into pre-drafted or rubber-stamped templates.”
Referring to various precedents, the Court noted: “Taking cognizance does not involve any formal action, or indeed action of any kind, but occurs as soon as a Magistrate, as such, applies his mind to the suspected commission of an offence.”
In addressing whether reasons must be recorded while issuing summons on a police report, the Court observed: “In case of taking cognizance of an offence based upon the police report, the Magistrate is not required to record reasons for issuing the process.”
However, the Court clarified that this latitude does not validate the use of templates: “While the contents of a rubber stamp or printed proforma may be in accordance with law, insertion of the accused’s name and statutory provisions into such pre-printed formats is unwarranted.”
It acknowledged the contributions of the Amicus Curiae, stating: “The Court acknowledges and deeply appreciates the valuable assistance tendered by Shri Vimlendu Tripathi, learned Amicus Curiae, whose insightful submissions and well-researched arguments have significantly contributed to the just and proper adjudication.”
The Court unequivocally directed that all learned Magistrates and Special Judges must cease the use of ‘pre-printed rubber stamps’ or ‘pre-typed proformas’ when taking cognizance and issuing summoning orders, with immediate effect.
To ensure effective implementation, the Court instructed the Registrar (Compliance), through the Registrar General, to promptly forward a copy of the order to all District Judges across the State.These District Judges were further tasked with ensuring that the order is circulated among all Judicial Officers within their respective jurisdictions.
Concluding the matter, the Court found no material irregularity in the summoning orders under challenge and dismissed the present and all connected applications, granting the applicants liberty to file fresh applications on merits at the appropriate stage, after compliance with Section 207 Cr.P.C.
Additionally, the Court mandated that a copy of the order be forwarded to the Director of the Judicial Training and Research Institute (J.T.R.I.), Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, for official record and future reference.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: D.M. Tripathi, Nagendra Pratap Singh, Vimlendu Tripathi, Ashish Kumar Mishra, Om Prakash Vishwakarma, Ram Babu Yadav, Karunesh Narayan Tripathi, Ajay Kumar, Ajeet Kumar Singh, Prem Chand Saroj, Giri Ram Rawat, Indra Deo Mishra, Shri Ram (Rawat), Vinesh Kumar Soni, Pratik J. Nagar, Ankit Srivastava, Laxami Pati, Amit Daga, Vikrant Singh Parihar, Digambar Dwivedi, Maya Pati Pandey, Mahendra Kumar Maurya, Ramesh Chandra Yadav, Swapnil Sinha, Azhar Hussain, Pradeep Saxena, Jyoti Kumar Singh, Rishi Kant Rai
For the Respondents: G.A., Rishu Mishra
Case Title: Niraj @ Banti Shahi and Others v. State of U.P. and Another (with connected applications)
Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC:78003
Case Number: APPLICATION U/S 482 No. 16456 of 2024 (Lead Case)
Bench: Justice Vinod Diwakar
[Read/Download order]
