HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4716 of 2025 Court No. - 86 HON'BLE SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A for the State, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 as also perused the record. 2. The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(1) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred to set aside the impugned charge sheet no.01 ddated 03.03.2022 as well as summoning/cognizance order dated 30.04.2025 and 18.05.2022 passed by Additional/Special Judge (SC/ST Act) Varanasi in Special Session Trial No.558 of 2022, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 341, 308 IPC and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Kapsethi, District Varanasi. 3. It appears that the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act) has passed the impugned summoning order on a printed proforma without recording any reasons or indicating due application of judicial mind to the facts of the case and the material available on record. Such a mechanical order, passed in a routine manner, does not conform to the settled principles of law governing issuance of process. 4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749, has held that summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter and the order must reflect that the Magistrate has applied his mind to the facts and the law. Similarly, in Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda, (2015) 12 SCC 420, it was reiterated that before issuing process, the court must record its satisfaction that sufficient ground exists for proceeding, and such satisfaction Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Yogesh Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Kaushal Kishor Harsh Singh .....Appellant(s) State Of U.P. Through Its Secretary Department Of Home And Another .....Respondent(s) must be discernible from the order itself. Again, in Birla Corporation Ltd. v. Adventz Investments and Holdings Ltd., (2019) 16 SCC 610, the Apex Court disapproved the practice of passing printed or cyclostyled summoning orders, holding that such orders demonstrate non-application of mind and are unsustainable in law. 5. In view of the legal principles enunciated in the aforesaid decisions, the impugned summoning order, having been passed mechanically on a printed proforma and without reasons, cannot be sustained. 6. Accordingly, the impugned summoning order is hereby quashed. 7. The matter is remanded back to the court concerned to pass a fresh reasoned, and speaking order on the complaint, in accordance with law after due consideration of the material available on record. 8. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. October 13, 2025 Ajeet CRLA No. 4716 of 2025 2 (Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.) Digitally signed by :- AJEET KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad