HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2517 of 2021 Court No. - 29 HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant and perused the material on record. 2. The present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the summoning order dated 11.07.2018 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First, Hardoi in Complaint Case No. 3591 of 2018 (Mahipal Vs. Poonam and others), under Sections 193, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station Pachdewra, District Hardoi as well as entire criminal proceedings of the aforesaid case pending before it. 3. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that the complainant is the resident of Hardoi, while the applicant is a resident of District Shahjahanpur, therefore, a duty was casted on the Magistrate to follow the procedure as laid down under Section 202(1) Cr.P.C. and further that the order whereby the applicant has been summoned is a proforma order and the same has been passed by filling in the blanks, a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 10.08.2021 had granted interim protection to the applicant while issuing notice to the opposite party No. 2. 4. Today when the case was taken up, learned counsel for the applicant confines his arguments to the first part of the submission that the summoning order dated 03.05.2017 is bereft of application of mind and Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Narvind Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Raghunath Prasad Smt. Poonam @ Poona .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And Anr. .....Opposite Party(s) has been passed on the cyclostyled copy. He thus argues that the summoning order suffers from the vice of non-application of mind and therefore is liable to be set aside on that ground alone. In support of his submission, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Megh Nath Gupta & another Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2008 (62) ACC 826 as well as Single Judge judgment and order passed by this Court in the case of Ankit Vs. State of U.P. and another [(2009) (9) ADJ 778] on an Application No. 19647 of 2009 filed under Section 482 CrPC on 15.10.2009. He, thus, argues that the summoning order is liable to be set aside in view of the well settled law of this Court. He also placed before me several orders passed by this Court whereby similar orders have been set aside by this Court and the matters have been remanded before the Trial Court for fresh orders in accordance with law. 5. A perusal of the summoning order impugned in the present proceedings clearly demonstrates that there was no application of mind whatsoever prior to the passing of the summoning order, which has been repelled by this Court in various judgments. 6. In view of the categorical pronouncements of this Court, the impugned order dated 11.07.2018 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First, Hardoi in Complaint Case No. 3591 of 2018 (Mahipal Vs. Poonam and others), under Sections 193, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station Pachdewra, District Hardoi, is set aside and the matter is remanded before the concerned Magistrate for passing fresh orders of summoning and cognizance if it deems fit, within a month from the date of production of a certified copy of the order before it. 7. Consequently, the application is allowed in part and the impugned order dated 11.07.2018 is set aside in terms of the order passed above. December 10, 2025 Mustaqeem A482 No. 2517 of 2021 2 (Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHD MUSTAQEEM KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench