Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:76107 Court No. - 73 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6702 of 2025 Applicant :- Sandeep Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Krishna Dev Mishra,Shashi Kant Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Tarun Agrawal Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri Krishna Dev Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Jay Bahadur Singh, learned AGA for the State and Sri Tarun Agarwal for the opposite party no. 2. 2. A joint statement has been made by the learned counsel for the parties that they do not propose to file any affidavits and the application be decided on the basis of the documents available on record. With the consent of the parties, the application is being decided at the fresh stage. 3. This application u/s 482 of C.P.C. has been preferred for quashing the entire proceeding as well as Impugned Summoning order dated 30.01.2023, passed by Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, POCSO Second, Gautam Buddha Nagar in Special Case No. 2185 of 2022 (N.P.C.L. Vs Sandeep), Under Section-135 of Electricity Act at Police Station-Knowledge Park, District- Greater Noida (Commissionerate Gautam Buddha Nagar), pending in the Court of Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fifth, Gautam Buddha Nagar. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that a complaint was filed by the opposite party no. 2 against the applicant on 05.06.2022 with relation to commission of offences under Section 135 read with Section 151 and 154 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The said complaint stood registered on 05.06.2022 and by virtue of the order dated 30.01.2023 the applicant has been summoned. 5. Questioning the said summoning order dated 30.01.2023 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, POCSO-II, Gautam Buddha Nagar, the applicant has filed the present application. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has though submitted that there are several grounds which are legally untenable in attacking the summoning order as well as the entire proceedings emanating from loding of the complaint but he submits that the core and fundamental defect which goes to the root of the matter is regarding the fact that the summoning order is cryptic and has not been passed with application of mind and even the case of the complainant has not been recited. 7. Sri Tarun Agarwal, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, on the other hand, while countering the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant, submits that though the offences have been committed as apparent from the complaint lodged by the opposite party no. 2 but according to him, the summoning order has not been passed in correct perspective. He submits that the summoning order be set aside and the matter be remitted back to the court below to pass a fresh order strictly in accordance with law within the time bound period. 8. I have heard the submissions made across the bar and perused the record carefully. 9. Apparently, a complaint was lodged by the opposite party no. 2 against the applicant under Section 135 read with Section 151 and 154 of the Electricity Act, 2003. On 30.01.2023, the applicant has been summoned by the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, POCSO-II, Gautam Budh Nagar which is as under.- " पततवलल पसततत हहई। पररवतदल कक ववदतन अधधवकत उपसससत। पररवतदल कक ववदतन अधधवकत दतरत आदकश पत पर इस आशय कत पपषतषकन वकयत गयत वक उनहह दष०प०सष० कक धतरत 202 कक अधलन वकसल सतकल कक परलवकत नहह करनत हह तसत ककई अनय सतकय भल पसततत नहह करनत हह। द०प०सष० कक धतरत 200 कक अधलन परलवकत पररवतदल कक सतकय तसत पततवलल पर उपलबध अवभलकखख सक पसम दषयत पतलत हकतत हह वक ववपकल / अवभयतक नक ववदतत अधधवनयम कक धतरत 135 (1) (ए) कक अधलन दणडनलय अपरतध कतररत वकयत हह। अतत उक ववपकल / अवभयतक कक ववदतत अधधवनयम, 2003 कक धतरत 135 (1) (ए) कक अधलन दणडनलय अपरतध कक आरकप कत उतर दकनक हकतत आहहत वकयत जतयक। पततवलल वदनतषक 01.03.2023 कक अवभयतक कक उपसससवत हकतत पसततत कक जतयक। पररवतदल आवशयक पहरवल अनदर सपतह करक।" 10. A perusal of the summoning order would reveal that the same is cryptic, non speaking and does not accord satisfactions while deciding the case of the complainant that prima facie offences have been committed. The Hon'ble Apex Court in M/S. JM Laboratories vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 2025 INSC 127 had the occasion to consider the said aspect and it was observed as under.- "9. In the present case also, no reasons even for the namesake have been assigned by the learned Magistrate. The summoning order is totally a non- speaking one. We therefore find that in light of the view taken by us in criminal appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2345 of 2024 titled "INOX Air Products Limited Now Known as INOX Air Products Private Limited and Another v. The State of Andhra Pradesh", and the legal position as has been laid down by this Court in a catena of judgments including in the cases of Pepsi Foods Ltd. and another Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and others, Sunil Bharti Mittal Vs. Central Central Bureau of Investigation, Mehmood U Rehman Vs. Khazir Mohammad Tunda and others and Krishna Lal Chawla and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, the present appeal deserves to be allowed." 11. Accordingly, the summoning order dated 30.01.2023 is set aside, matter is remitted back to the court below to pass a fresh summoning order strictly in accordance with law taking into account each and every aspect of matter as noticed above. 12. With the aforesaid observation, the application stands disposed of. 13. The passing of the order may not be construed to be an expression that this Court has entered into the merit and the court below shall pass a fresh order strictly in accordance with law. Order Date :- 9.5.2025 Rajesh Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad