HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 1225 of 2025 Court No. - 11 HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J. 1. Affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party no.2/Malti Devi and rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of the applicants, are taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Dharmraj Mishra, Learned Counsel for the applicant, Sri S.K. Singh, learned Counsel for the side opposite and learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. The instant petition has been preferred seeking following main relief(s):- "For facts, reasons and circumstances stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is expedient in the interest of justice that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash/set-aside the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 7/2025 under Sections U/S 70 (1), 74,352 (2), 351 B.N.S and section 3(2) (v) S.C/S.T act, Police Station Itiyathok, District Gonda and also to quash the summoning order dated 31.1.2025 as Annexure No.4 passed by the Learned Special judge S.C/S.T Act Gonda, in the interest of justice and this hon'ble court may kindly further be to pleased to allow the application/petition with costs." 4. By means of the present petition, the applicant has impeached the order dated 31.01.2025 passed by Special judge S.C/S.T Act Gonda (in short 'concerned court') in complaint case no. 7/2025 under Sections 70 (1), 74,352 (2), 351 B.N.S and section 3(2) (v) S.C/S.T act, Police Station- Itiyathok, District-Gonda. The operative portion of order dated 31.01.2025 reads as under:- Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dharm Raj Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Raghvendra Singh, Sushil Kumar Singh Vijay @ Jhabre .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) "अिभयुक्तगण गुरुदेव, कं धईलाल उफर् ननके व िवजय उफर् छबरे को धारा-70(1),74, 352(2), 351 भा०न्या०सं० व धारा-3 (2) (v) एस०सी०/एस०टी० ऐक्ट के अन्तगर्त धारा में िवचारण हेतु तलब िकया जाता है। पिरवािदनी आवश्यक पैरवी अंदर सप्ताह करे। पिरवािदनी द्वारा िलस्ट गवाहान दािखल करने पर अिभयुक्तगण के िवरुद्ध सम्मन िदनांक-21.03.2025 के िलए जारी हो।" 5. The order impugned has been challenged on the ground that the same is in violation of Section 223 BNSS, according to which an opportunity of hearing ought to have been provided to the applicant by the 'concerned court' before proceeding in the matter. In this regard specific averments have been made in para-15 of the instant application, which reads as under:- "That no notice or summon has been served upon the applicant prior to taking the cognizance which is clear cut violation of the section 223 of B.N.S.S. It is provided under the statute that no cognizance of an offence shall be taken by the magistrate without giving the accused an opportunity of being heard. The complaint was filed on 28.1.2025 and statements was recorded on 28.1.2025 and 29.1.2025, the impugned summoning order has been passed on 31.1.2025 therefore it is clear that no notice or summon has been given to the applicant." 6. Learned Counsel for the opposite party on the basis of order dated 30.01.2025 passed by the 'concerned court' and para-15 of affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party no.2, opposed the present revision. (a) Order dated 30.01.2025 reads as under:- "पुकार करायी गयी। पिरवादी व िवपक्षी उपिस्थत। बहस सुनी गयी। वास्ते आदेश िदनांक 31.01.2025 को पेश हो।" (b) Para-15 of the affidavit filed today, reads as under:- "That it is submitted that the accused persons were alert and watchful, therefore on 30-01-2025 the accused persons appeared before the Court of Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Gonda and they were given opportunity of argument and were heard and this the first proviso of Section 223 BNSS has been complied with." 7. In response, learned Counsel for the revisionist stated that infact no opportunity was provided by the 'concerned court' to the applicant/accused, as no notice was ever issued prior to passing of order dated 31.01.2025 and it appears that inadvertently in the order dated 30.01.2025 the 'concerned court' has indicated that complainant and respondent are present and arguments NA528 No. 1225 of 2025 2 heard. 8. In support of aforesaid, reliance has been placed on the order dated(s) 28.01.2025, 29.01.2025 and 30.01.2025 passed by the Magistrate. The order dated 30.01.2025 has already been quoted hereinabove. (a) The relevant order passed on 28.01.2025, reads as under:- "पत्रावली पेश हुई। पिरवािदनी उपिस्थत एवं साक्षी सीमा देवी उपिस्थत। बयान अंतगर्त धारा 223 BNSS व बयान अंतगर्त धारा 225 बना अंिकत िकया गया। पत्रावली िदनांक 29.01.25 को वास्ते शेष 225 BNSS पेश हो।" (b) The order dated 29.01.2025 reads as under:- "पुकारा गया। पिरवािदनी के अिधवक्ता व साक्षी ओम प्रकाश उपिस्थत। साक्षी PW 2 ओम प्रकाश बयान धारा 225 BNSS अंिकत िकया गया। पत्रावली िदनांक 30.01.25 को वास्ते तलबी बहस पेश हो।" 11. From a perusal of above referred order(s) of the 'concerned court' including the impugned order as also the copy of questionnaire annexed at page no. 18 and 19 of the affidavit dated 14.09.2025 of the applicant, it is evident that no opportunity was provided to the applicant by the 'concerned court' before summoning the applicant, which ought to be in terms of Section 223 BNSS. Thus, this Court finds that interference is required in the impugned order dated 31.01.2025. 12. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the order dated 31.01.2025, is hereby set aside/quashed. The matter is remanded back to the concern court to pass afresh order, in accordance with law. September 15, 2025 Jyoti/- NA528 No. 1225 of 2025 3 (Saurabh Lavania,J.) Digitally signed by :- JYOTI RAJWANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench