MUNNA LAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AMAR Saran, J. Heard learned Counsel for the applicants and Sri Vinod Kumar Mishra, learned A. G. A. This application has been filed for challenging an order summoning the applicants along with some other accused by order dated 13. 9. 2007 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Room No. 1, Firozabad in Case No. 3078 of 2007 under sections 147, 353, 336, 427, 504, 506 IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, P. S. Sirsaganj, district Firozabad, and for quashing the criminal proceedings thereof.

(2.) ESSENTIALLY one submission has been made that the summoning order dated 13. 9. 207 passed on a charge-sheet was on a printed proforma and it revealed lack of application of mind.

(3.) PARAGRAPH No. 12 in the case of Kanti Bhadra Shah v. State of West Bengal, 2000 (40) ACC 441 (SC) = AIR 2000 SC 522 can also be seen in this light to advantage, which reads as follows: - " If there is no legal requirement that the trial Court should write an order showing the reasons for framing a charge, why should the already burdened Trial Courts be further burdened with such an extra work. The time has reached to adopt all possible measures to expedite the Court procedures and to chalk out measures to avert all roadblocks causing avoidable delays. If a Magistrate is to write detailed orders at different states, the snail-paced progress of proceedings in Trial Courts would further be slowed down. We are coming across interlocutory orders of Magistrates and Sessions Judges running in to several pages. We can appreciate if such a detailed order has been passed for culminating the proceedings before them. But it is quite unnecessary to write detailed orders at other stages, such as issuing process, remanding the accused to custody, framing of charges, passing over to next stages in the trial. "