Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:145069 Court No. - 71 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 27443 of 2025 Applicant :- Sadavriksha Alias Guddu And 7 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Keshawa Prasad Pandey,Krishna Chandra Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Surendra Mohan Mishra Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 and learned AGA for the State. 2. This application under Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as 'BNSS') has been preferred for quashing of the entire proceedings, including charge-sheet dated 18.06.2025 as well as cognizance / summoning order dated 05.07.2025, of Case Crime No. 76 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 190, 333, 115(2), 352, 117(2), 324(2), 351(3) BNS., Police Station- Khesarha, District- Siddharthnagar, pending before the Court of C.J.(J.D.) / J.M., Bansi, Siddharthnagar. 3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicants that first information report of impugned case has been lodged by making false and baseless allegations. Learned counsel has referred the contents of first information report and statements of witnesses and submitted that no prima facie case is made out against the applicants. It has further been submitted that impugned cognizance/ summoning order has been passed on a printed proforma by merely filling the details of case like case number, section, crime number and police station etc. in the proforma, which clearly shows that this order has been passed in a mechanical manner without application of judicial mind and thus, the impugned cognizance / summoning order is not sustainable. 4. Learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 and learned A.G.A. submitted that a prima-facie case is made out against the applicants but it could not be disputed that impugned summoning order has been passed on a printed proforma by filling details of the case. 5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 6. Perusal of record shows that the impugned cognizance / summoning order dated 05.07.2025 has been passed on a printed proforma and merely details of case like name of accused, Sections, Police Station, Crime Number and Next Date of Listing were filled in the said proforma. It is well settled that summoning order has to be passed after considering relevant material and applying judicial mind. In the instant case, it is apparent that the impugned order has been passed in a mechanical way without applying judicial mind. 7. It may be stated that there are hundreds of decisions of this Court to the effect that the summoning order cannot be passed on a printed proforma by merely filling in the details of the case, rather the summoning order must be passed by applying judicial mind. To mention a few cases, reference may be made to the case of Ankit Vs. State of U.P., J.I.C. 2010 (1) 432, Basasudin and others Vs. State of U.P., 2011 (1) JIC 335 All, Abdul Rashid and others Vs. State of U.P., 2010 (3) JIC 7661 All, Surender Kumar & others Vs. State of U.P., 2021 (7) ADJ 61, Virendra Kumar Bajpai Vs. State of U.P. (Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No.7972/2022) and Ram Kewal Vs. State of U.P., 2024:AHC- LKO:5736. 8. It is a matter of concern that despite repeated directions of this Court, summoning orders are being passed by some courts on printed proforma in flagrant violation of law. Summoning of a person as accused is a serious matter and thus, it must reflect the application of judicial mind. 9. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned summoning order dated 05.07.2025, passed by the C.J.(J.D.) / J.M., Bansi, Siddharthnagar, is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the court concerned to pass the order on cognizance / summoning afresh expeditiously in accordance with law. 10. The application u/s 528 BNSS is finally disposed of in above terms. Order Date :- 22.8.2025 Anand Digitally signed by :- ANAND VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad