- (1.) HON'ble Shri Kant Tripathi, J.Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicants is taken on record.
(2.) THE learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 denied to file any affidavit in rebuttal. Heard the learned counsel for the applicants and the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and the learned A.G.A. for the respondent No. 1 and perused the record. It appears that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahjahanpur has taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. on the basis of the charge-sheet filed by the Investigating Officer in case crime No. C-16 of 2005, P.S. Sadar Bazar, District Shahjahanpur.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has not applied his mind to the facts of the case before taking cognizance of the offences. He has acted mechanically while passing the summoning order dated 10.1.2006 which has been signed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on a proforma already prepared. A similar printed seal has been affixed on the charge-sheet. THErefore, it was not a case of application of mind. Whenever any police report or complaint is filed before the Magistrate, he has to apply his mind to the facts stated in the report or complaint before taking cognizance. If after applying his mind to the facts of the case, the Magistrate comes to the conclusion that there is sufficient material to proceed with the matter, he may take cognizance. In the present case, the summoning order has been passed by affixing a ready made seal of the summoning order on a plain paper and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had merely entered the next date fixed in the case in the blank portion of the ready made order. Apparently the learned Magistrate had not applied his mind to the facts of the case before passing the order dated 10.1.2006, therefore, the impugned order cannot be upheld.;