HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 9177 of 2025 Court No. - 89 HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J. 1. Shri Vinod Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Umesh Kumar, learned counsel for the private respondent and Shri Acharya Rajesh Tripathi, learned AGA for the State-respondent are present. 2. Challenge in this petition are to two orders each dated 10.6.2022 passed by Judicial Magistrate in Criminal Case No.869 of 2022 (State vs. Mohd. Arif & Ors.). Two simultaneous orders on same day, i.e., 10.6.2022 were passed by the concerned court and in both orders, cognizance in Case Crime No.146 of 2021, Police Station Khajuria, District Rampur was taken by the court. However, one of the cognizance order is handwritten and cognizance against the accused Mohd. Arif, Mohd, Jaini and Mohd. Jaidi for offence under Section 420, 468, 471, 120B IPC and against accused Mohd. Junaid and Mohd. Ashraf Ali for offences under Section 468, 471, 468, 120B IPC was taken. On the other hand, a separate cognizance order was also passed on same day, i.e., 10.6.2022. Said order is typed one wherein cognizance against the accused Mohd. Arif, Mohd, Jaini and Mohd. Jaidi for offences under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and against accused Mohd. Junaid and Mohd. Ashraf Ali for offences under Section 420, 467, 471, 468, 120-B IPC was taken. 3. The existence of two cognizance orders passed on same day raises suspicion and subsequently a report was called from the concerned court through District Judge, Rampur. The District Judge, Rampur has forwarded the report submitted by the Presiding Officer of the concerned court. The concerned court has mentioned that the handwritten order does Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Vinod Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Sanjay Singh, Umesh Kumar Mohd. Jaini And 4 Others .....Petitioner(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) not mention the next date fixed in the case and it only bears initial of the concerned court. 4. However, it is very much surprising to note that neither the Presiding Officer of the concerned court nor the District Judge, Rampur had made any effort to mention whether both orders were passed by the Presiding Officer or one of them was fabricated. The report pertaining to handwritten order gives impression that the typed order has been fabricated. Despite mentioning such irregularity appearing in the handwritten order, no specific reply has been given. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also drew the attention of the Court towards a very peculiar fact. He stated that initials on the handwritten order dated 10.6.2022 is identical to the initials of the Presiding Officer made on the charge-sheet where also a brief order of cognizance has been passed. 6. In the given circumstances, the District Judge, Rampur is directed to set up an inquiry in reference to the observations made in the order and to submit his report by the next date fixed. 7. Put up this case as fresh on 27.4.2026 at 2:00 pm. 8. Registrar (J) (Compliance) is directed to communicate this order to the District Judge, Rampur for necessary compliance. March 30, 2026 SK A227 No. 9177 of 2025 2 (Anil Kumar-X,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUSHEEL KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad