HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10006 of 2025 Court No. - 13 HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J. 1. Heard Sri Vineet Kumar Chaurasia, the learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Rajesh Kumar Shukla, the learned State Law Officer as well as perused the record. 2. The instant application has been filed seeking following main relief(s):- "That for the facts, reasons and circumstances stated in the accompanying affidavit to this petition it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned Charge sheet bearing No.01/2019 dated 28.10.2019 filed in Case No. 5893 of 2020, Case Crime No.402/2019, Under Section-452, 323 and 506 of I.P.C. at P.S.- Saadatganj, District-Lucknow, summoning order dated 18.11.2020 passed by the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 27, Lucknow and order of Bailable Warrant dated 28.10.2025 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate/A.T.S., Lucknow as contained in Annexure No.1, 2 & 3 to the Affidavit filed in support of present Application. It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to stay the entire proceedings arising out of Case No. 5893 of 2020, Case Crime No.402/2019, Under Section-452, 323 and 506 of I.P.C. at P.S.-Saadatganj, District-Lucknow, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate/A.T.S., Lucknow." 3. The proceedings in issue have been assailed/challenged based upon the following two grounds:- (i) The summons have been issued on a printed proforma. (ii) The charge sheet was filed against the accused/applicants under Section(s)- 452, 323, 506, 427, 504, 406 IPC and despite this the Magistrate concerned has summoned the accused/applicants for facing trial under Section(s)- 452, 323, 506 IPC. 4. In support of ground No. (i), as aforesaid, the applicants' counsel has placed reliance on the final order dated 12.11.2021 passed by this Court in Application U/S 482 No. 18616 of 2021 (Rajendra Chaubey and others vs. State of U.P. and another), which reads as under:- Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Vineet Kumar Chaurasia Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Naeemuddin Siddiqui And Another .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko And Another .....Opposite Party(s) "Vakalatnama filed by Prabhakar Dubey, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for opposite party no.2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. The instant application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceeding of Case Crime No.0085 of 2020, State vs. Rajendra Chaubey and others, under Sections 323, 506, 452, 188, 427, 325, 308 I.P.C., Section 51 Disaster Management Act and Section 3 Epidemic Diseases Act, Police Station Itwa, District Siddharth Nagar, pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siddharath Nagar, initiated upon the charge sheet dated 16.09.2020 and summoning order dated 13.01.2021. Foremost submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that the Magistrate did not apply his judicial mind at the time of passing the summoning order against the applicant because the impugned summoning order has been passed on a printed proforma, which is not permissible under law. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the judgment in the case of Ankit Vs. State of U.P. & Another; 2009 (9) ADJ 778. Learned counsel for the applicants has further submitted that the impugned first information report does not disclose any cognizable offence against the applicants and the investigation of the matter was carried out in a routine and casual manner and a charge sheet has been filed against the applicants without collecting credible evidence. He has further submitted that the present impugned criminal proceeding is nothing but malicious prosecution and an abuse of process of the Court, therefore, impugned summoning order is liable to be quashed. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the aforesaid contention of learned counsel for the applicants. However, he could not dispute the fact that the impugned summoning order dated 13.01.2021, which is annexed as Annexure No.1 to the affidavit, has been passed on a printed proforma, wherein the name of accused persons and sections has been filed in the blank spaces. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Darshan Singh Ram Kishan v. State of Maharashtra reported in MANU/SC/0089/1971: (1971) 2 SCC 654 has held as under:- "8. As provided by Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a Magistrate may take cognizance of an offence either, (a) upon receiving a complaint, or (b) upon a police report, or (c) upon information received from a person other than a police officer or even upon his own information or suspicion that such an offence has been committed. As has often been held, taking cognizance does not involve any formal action or indeed action of any kind but occurs as soon as a Magistrate applies his mind to the suspected commission of an offence. Cognizance, therefore, takes place at a point when a Magistrate first takes judicial notice of an offence. This is the position whether the Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence on a complaint, or on a police report, or upon information of a person other than a police officer. Therefore, when a Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence upon a police report, prima facie he does so of the offence or offences disclosed in such report." (Emphasis supplied) In Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation, AIR 2015 SC 923 (Three Judges Bench) Hon,ble Apex Court held as under: A482 No. 10006 of 2025 2 "47. However, the words "sufficient grounds for proceeding" appearing in the Section are of immense importance. It is these words which amply suggest that an opinion is to be formed only after due application of mind that there is sufficient basis for proceeding against the said accused and formation of such an opinion is to be stated in the order itself.." Therefore, it is essential that due application of mind should be reflected from the order taking cognizance. This Court in the case of Ankit vs. State of U.P. (supra) in paragraph nos.10 & 11 has held as under:- "10. Below aforesaid sentence, the seal of the Court containing name of Sri Talevar Singh, the then Judicial Magistrate-III, has been affixed and the learned Magistrate has put his short signature (initial) over his name. The manner in which the impugned order has been prepared shows that the learned Magistrate did not at all apply his judicial mind at the time of passing this order and after the blanks were filled up by some employee of the Court, he has put his initial on the seal of the Court. This method of passing judicial order is wholly illegal. If for the shake of argument, it is assumed that the blanks on the printed proforma were filled up in the handwriting of learned Magistrate, even then the impugned order would be illegal and invalid, because order of taking cognizance or any other judicial order cannot be passed by filling up blanks on the printed proforma. Although as held by this Court in the case of Megh Nath Gupta v. State of U.P., [2008 (62) ACC 826.] in which reference has been made to the cases of Deputy Chief Controller Import and Export v. Roshan Lal Agrawal, [2003 (46) ACC 686 (SC).] U.P. Pollution Control Board v. Mohan Meakins, [(2000) 3 SCC 745 : AIR 2000 SC 1456.] and Kanti Bhadra v. State of West Bengal, [2000 (40) ACC 441 (SC).] the Magistrate is not required to pass detailed reasoned order at the time of taking cognizance on the charge-sheet, but it does not mean that order of taking cognizance can be passed by filling up the blanks on printed proforma. At the time of passing any judicial order including the order taking cognizance on the charge-sheet, the Court is required to apply judicial mind and even the order of taking cognizance cannot be passed in mechanical manner. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and the matter has to be sent back to the Court below for passing fresh order on the charge-sheet after applying judicial mind. 11. Consequently, the application under section 482 is allowed and impugned order is set aside. The learned Magistrate concerned is directed to pass fresh order on the charge- sheet in Criminal Case No. 252 of 2009 (State v. Ankit) arising out of Case Crime No. 202 of 2008 of P.S. Gagal Hedi, District Saharanpur." It is thus, abundantly clear that the use of blank printed proforma in passing the judicial order and that too while passing the impugned summoning order cannot be said to reflect the application of judicial mind while passing impugned summoning order. In view of the aforesaid overall facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 13.01.2021, cannot be legally sustained because of non-application of mind which has resulted in miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the application under section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed and the impugned summoning order dated 13.01.2021, passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siddharath Nagar is, hereby, quashed. The learned Magistrate concerned is directed to pass fresh order on the charge-sheet in Case Crime No.0085 of 2020, State vs. Rajendra A482 No. 10006 of 2025 3 Chaubey and others, under Sections 323, 506, 452, 188, 427, 325, 308 I.P.C., Section 51 Disaster Management Act and Section 3 Epidemic Diseases Act, Police Station Itwa, District Siddharth Nagar." 5. The learned State counsel has opposed the instant application. He says that in exercise of power under Section 528 B.N.S.S., akin to Section 482 Cr.P.C. (now repealed), in the facts of the case the applicants are not entitled for any indulgence by this Court. 6. Considered the aforesaid and perused the record. 7. Upon due consideration of the aforesaid, this Court finds that no interference is required in the matter. It is for the following fact(s)/reason(s):- (i) In terms of the summoning order dated 18.11.2020, the applicants appeared before this Court and, as per record, they were released on bail and they were regularly appearing before the court of competent jurisdiction namely Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 27, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the "Magistrate"). (ii) As for some reasons the applicants could not appear before the Magistrate, Bailable Warrants have been issued and therefore the present application for the main relief(s), quoted above, has been instituted before this Court. (iii) The case in issue is based upon the Police Report/Charge Sheet dated 28.10.2019 filed by the Investigating Officer concerned (in short "IO") against the accused/applicants for committing the offence under Section(s)- 452, 323, 506, 427, 504, 406 IPC and accused/applicants have been summoned by the Magistrate for facing trial for the offence under Section(s)- 452, 323, 506 IPC, which is permissible as at the state of summoning an accused the Magistrate has to apply his mind. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Sadab vs. State of U.P. and another; 2023 SCC OnLine All 30 : (2023) 4 All LJ 223. (iv) The reasons for summoning the accused based upon the Police Report/Charge Sheet are not required. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta, (2019) 20 SCC 539. Reference can also be made to Section 476 Cr.P.C. and the forms appended. 8. For the act(s)/reason(s) aforesaid, the present application being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed. No orders as to cost. December 5, 2025 Arun/- A482 No. 10006 of 2025 4 (Saurabh Lavania,J.) Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR GANGWAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench