Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:37135 Court No. - 15 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5141 of 2025 Applicant :- Udbhav Shukla @ Udhav Shukla And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Avinash Pandey,Vipul Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J. 1. Heard Sri Praveen Shukla, Advocate holding brief of Sri Avinash Pandey, the learned counsel for the applicants as well as Sri Avishesh Kumar Singh, the learned A.G.A. and perused the record. 2. Learned AGA has informed the Court that the information of the present application has been delivered to the opposite Party No.2 through police on 17.06.2025 but he has not put in appearance to oppose the application. 3. By means of the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicants have sought quashing of the impugned charge sheet dated 03.01.2024 as well as the summoning order dated 03.12.2024 passed by the Court of learned Special Judge, P.O.C.S.O. Act, Pratapgarh in Case No. 1387 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 28 of 2020, under Sections 354-A, 294, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 7/8 of POCSO Act, 2012 at Police Station- Mandhata, District- Pratapgarh. 4. The aforesaid case has been instituted on the basis of an FIR lodged on 25.01.2020 against the applicants, alleging that when the informant's daughter aged 13 years old was going to school at about 09:00 AM on 17.12.2019, the applicant No.1 molested and abused her, due to which she got frightened and stopped going to the school. 5. In the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the victim reiterated the FIR version. 6. The complainant also reiterated the FIR version in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. 7. The Investigating Officer put some questions to the complainant during which the complainant stated that he has no knowledge about the incident that took place on 20.01.2020 and the complaint was drafted by his Advocate. The complainant stated that he has no knowledge about the contents of the complaint on the basis whereof the FIR was lodged. 8. In response to some questions put by the Investigating Officer, the victim stated that she did not remember the place where the applicant No.1 had molested her on 20.01.2020. 9. Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the FIR was filed and a charge-sheet was submitted against the applicants- Udbhav Shukla @ Udhav Shukla and Kamalakan Shukla @ Sadhu Shukla and in the summoning order, the trial court has observed that cognizance of offence is taken against the applicant's Udbhav Shukla and Kamalakan Shukla @ Sadhu Shukla but has summoned "Omnath Sharma @ Fauji, Satish Sharma, Sarvesh Sharma and Prema Sharma" for trial whereas those persons are not accused in the present case. 10. Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that a bare perusal of the summoning order indicates a total non- application of mind on the part of the Presiding Officer of the trial Court. The summoning order of an accused person to face trial is a serious matter and it cannot be done in a mechanical manner. 11. Learned counsel for the applicant next submitted that the victim has not specified any date, time and place of the incident in her statement recorded by the Investigating Officer. 12. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the aforesaid facts make it clear that the allegations of the FIR have been crafted by an Advocate, the same have been not fully supported by the complainant and the victim and the trial Court has taken cognizance of the offence in a mechanical manner, as is evident from the names of the persons who should have been summoned to face the trial. 13. The learned AGA has opposed the application but he could not dispute the aforesaid aspects of the matter. 14. Learned AGA has submitted that some defects in the summoning order are not sufficient to exonerate the applicants fully and the trial Court should be given an opportunity to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. 15. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and submission of the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that summoning of an accused person to make him face the trial is a serious matter and it cannot be done lightly without proper application of mind to the material collected by the prosecution, in a cursory and mechanical manner. The aforesaid defects are evident in the summoning order from the mere fact that the trial Court has summoned persons to face trial who are not accused in the case. 16. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, I am of the view that the impugned summoning order dated 03.12.2024 is unsustainable in law and is liable to be set-aside. 17. Accordingly, the application stands allowed. The impugned cognizance and summoning order dated 03.12.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, P.O.C.S.O. Act, Pratapgarh is hereby set-aside. 18. The trial court shall pass appropriate orders afresh after proper appreciation of the material placed before him, in accordance with law. . (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) Order Date :- 2.7.2025 -Amit K- Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench