Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:68302 Court No. - 74 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1471 of 2025 Applicant :- Sushant Shekhar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Diwakar Tiwari,Gyanendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J. 1. Heard Sri Gyanendra Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of applicant and Sri Pankaj Kumar, learned AGA appearing on behalf of State. 2. Instant application has been preferred with the prayer to quash the entire proceeding including the impugned charge sheet dated 25.04.2019 as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 24.07.2019 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etah in Case no. 3904 of 2019 (State vs. Sushant Shekhar) arising out of Case Crime no. 170 of 2018, under Sections 7/10 of the Uttar Pradesh Public Examination Act, 1998, PS- Rijor, District Etah, pending in court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court no. 17, Etah. 3. The opening argument initiated by learned counsel for the applicant is that the cognizance order dated 24.07.2019 is illegal since the same is barred by Section 468 of Cr.P.C. 4. At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicant sought the attention of the Court over the order dated 24.07.2019 through which cognizance of offence has been taken up by learned court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etah in Case no. 3904 of 2019 arising out of Case Crime no. 170 of 2018 in pursuance to Section 7/10 of Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 1998 but cognizance of offence has been taken up by learned court of Chief Judicial Magistrate in pursuance to Section 7/10 of IPC, Public Examination Act on the basis of the charge sheet preferred at the behest of the concerned Investigating Officer. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the blunder which is apparent on face of record cannot be treated as typographical mistake since in both the paras available in order dated 24.07.2019 it is Section 7/10 IPC only has been mentioned by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. One more vital fact which has been pointed out by learned counsel for the applicant that in the 'brief facts of the case' while preferring charge sheet by concerned Investigating Officer, no specific sections has been mentioned which is also taken into consideration by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at the time of taking cognizance. 6. Although learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer available in the application but did not disputed the apparent error of law which is available on face of record that mentioning of IPC was not required that too when the Section 7/10 of Public Examination Act, 1998 has been mentioned at the time of preferring charge sheet and no other sections were available wherein the implication of the applicant has been observed by concerned Investigating Officer. 7. After hearing the rival submissions extended by learned counsel for the parties, although it might be the clerical and typographical mistake but the same is not warranted from any Judicial Authority since the finest of fine consideration has to be given by concerned learned court while passing order at judicial side. 8. Impugned order dated 24.07.2019 is hereby set aside. Matter is remitted back to learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etah for taking fresh cognizance of offence, if required. 9. The instant application stands allowed accordingly. Order Date :- 30.4.2025 Shaswat Digitally signed by :- SHASWAT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad