HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5521 of 2025 Court No. - 89 HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J. 1. Shri Ashok Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri K.K. Gupta, learned A.G.A. for the State are present. 2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed with the following main prayer :- "(i) To Set aside the impugned order dated 19.06.2024 (Annexure No. 1) passed by the C.J.M., Lalitpur in Case No. 252 of 2000 (State vs. Naseem Bux & others); impugned Order 19.06.2024 (Annexure No. 2) passed by the C.J.M., Lalitpur in Case No. 600252 of 2000 (State vs. Naseem Bux & others) & impugned order dated 17.10.2024 (Annexure No. 3) passed by the Additional Session Judge, 1st, Lalitpur in Case S.T. No. 576/2024 (State of U.P. vs. Naseem Bux & others) and remand back the matter to the Court of C.J.M., Lalitpur for treating the case as inquiry proceedings and then pass the appropriate and reasoned order as per the direction given by the Hon'ble High Court in its order dated 13.08.2004 (Annexure No. 4)". 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were made accused in Criminal Case No. 252 of 2000 (State vs. Naseem Bux & others), which was initially pending at District Jhansi. They moved Transfer Application No.187 of 2000 (Mahmood Bux vs. State of U.P. & Anr.) wherein an order dated 13.8.2004 passed by this Court to transfer Criminal Case No.252 of 2000 from District Jhansi to the court of CJM Lalitpur. It was also directed that said case will be registered as inquiry proceeding and will be dealt with in accordance with law. In pursuance of the order dated 13.8.2004 passed by this Court, Criminal Case No.252 of Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ashok Trivedi, Rahul Trivedi Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Naseem Bux And 2 Others .....Petitioner(s) The State Of U.P. .....Respondent(s) 2000 was transferred to the court of CJM, Lalitpur. However, the learned CJM neither took cognizance of the offence nor committed the case to the courts of Sessions. The case was simply transferred to the courts of Sessions where charges under Section 228 Cr.P.C. were also framed by Additional Sessions Judge, Lalitpur in Sessions Trial No.576 of 2024 (State of U.P. v. Mahmood Bux). 4. Learned counsel submitted that various applications were submitted by the petitioners before the learned CJM as well as learned Additional Sessions Judge with a prayer to comply with the order dated 13.8.2004 passed by this Court wherein a direction was issued to register the case as inquiry proceeding. However, none of his applications were decided, rather trial in the case was initiated by the learned Additional Sessions Judge ignoring that neither cognizance was taken by the learned CJM nor any order of committal was passed before transferring the case to the courts of Sessions. Learned counsel submitted that framing of charges by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in absence of cognizance order by a competent court is patently illegal by virtue of Section 193 Cr.P.C. which expressly bars the Session Courts from taking cognizance except in cases where it has been vested with such jurisdiction. Learned counsel submitted that his prayer for registering the case as inquiry case was wrongly refused by learned CJM vide order dated 19.6.2024 and, therefore, the order dated 17.10.2024 vide which the charges have been framed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is illegal. Hence, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the order. 6. The order of this Court dated 13.8.2024 directing the learned CJM Lalitpur to register the case as an inquiry case was passed considering that the case at that stage was pending before the learned CJM and was yet not committed to the courts of Session. It is very much established that all the proceedings in a criminal case instituted upon a police report are inquiry proceedings till the stage of committal. Hence, the direction of the High Court has to be read in this context and it has not to be considered that the High Court had directed it to register as a complaint case. Hence, the argument by the petitioners that the case should have been registered as A227 No. 5521 of 2025 2 inquiry case is unsustainable. 7. It is also very much evident that two orders were passed on 19.6.2024 by learned CJM, Lalitpur. The first order was passed by dismissing an application filed by the petitioners for registering the case as inquiry case, and the subsequent order was a committal order. Therefore, the contention that neither cognizance was taken by the learned CJM nor order of committal was passed by him is bereft of merit. 8. I have perused various applications filed by the petitioners during the proceeding and in none of the applications, the petitioners has raised the objection that cognizance was not taken by the concerned Magistrate upon the charge-sheet against them. 9. Therefore, the order dated 19.6.2024 passed by the learned CJM in dismissing the application for registering the case as inquiry case and the subsequent order dated 19.6.2024 of committing the case to the courts of Session as well as the order dated 17.10.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in framing charges against the petitioners do not suffer from any illegality and are hereby upheld. 10. This petition is, accordingly, dimissed. April 24, 2026 SK A227 No. 5521 of 2025 3 (Anil Kumar-X,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUSHEEL KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad