HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9119 of 2025 Court No. - 16 HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA and perused the record. 2. The present application has been filed seeking quashing of the summoning order dated 13.07.2015, impugned summon order dated 26.05.2025 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Utraula, District Balrampur along with entire criminal proceedings of Case No.643 of 2011 (State Vs. Anil Kumar and Others), under Section 352, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Case Crime No.25 of 2011, Police Station-Utraula, District- Balrampur 3. Learned counsel for the applicants has assailed the impugned order dated 13.07.2015 on various grounds including the ground that the summoning order passed by the subordinate court is non speaking. He has submitted that issuing summon is a serious matter in criminal case and the court has to open its mind and record its finding, but in the present case, a bare perusal of the summoning order dated 13.07.2015 shows that no such recourse has been adopted by the subordinate court. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. J.M. Laboratories and others vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and another, 2025 INSC 127, decided on 30.1.2025, which is also pertaining to Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940. In the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sanjeev Kumar Mishra, Amrendra Nath Tripathi, Jay Karan Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Anil Kumar Mishra And 3 Others .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s) aforesaid case, the Supreme Court has observed that lodging of criminal proceedings is a serious matter and while issuing summons, the Magistrate has to apply his mind, but in the present case, such recourse is lacking. 5. Learned AGA, on the other hand, could not dispute the fact that the summoning order dated 13.07.2015 is non speaking. 6. After going through the record, I find that the subordinate court has issued summons and has recorded the fact that it has seen the papers and there was sufficient ground to proceed and thereafter the court has issued summons. The orders passed by the court below are not reasonable and application of mind is quite lacking. Certainly, summon of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter and criminal law cannot be set into motion in routine manner. As a matter of course, the court has to see the material on record and after discussing the same, summons could have been issued or the court could have dismissed the complaint. 7. In the present case, I find that the court below has not applied its mind and no reasons have been recorded, therefore, the impugned summoning orders dated 13.07.2015 and 26.05.2025 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the court concerned to take a fresh decision in the matter within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before the court concerned. 8. Needless to say that the order will be reasoned and speaking. The applicants may take all available pleas before the court below, which will also be considered in accordance with law. 9. The application stands disposed of. October 29, 2025 Arti/- A482 No. 9119 of 2025 2 (Brij Raj Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- ARTI MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- ARTI MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench