. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 30197 of 2025 Court No. - 75 HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J. 1. Counter affidavit filed today by learned AGA is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Abhishek Agarwal, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri J.B. Singh, learned AGA for the State-respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has made a statement, at bar, that he does not propose to file any rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavit filed today and the application be decided on the basis of the documents available on record. 4. With the consent of the parties, the application is being decided at fresh stage. 5. This is an application filed under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. for quashing the impugned cogninzance order dated 07.09.2024 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad and further to quash the entire proceedings of case no 78256/2024 (State vs/ Brijesh Upadhayaya), under Section 11 of the Uttar Pradesh Fire Prevention and Fire Safety Act, 2005, Police Station Tundla, District Firozabad, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Friozabad. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that a complaint was lodged on 05.03.2024 by opposite party no. 2-Chief Fire Officer, Firozabad against the applicant with an allegation that M/s Upadhyaya Cold Storage Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Abhishek Agarwal, Arvind Agrawal Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Brijesh Upadhyaya .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) Pvt. Ltd. was served with departmental notice dated 17.10.2018 and two reminders dated 02.02.2021 and 19.02.2021, however, no reply was submitted, thus offence under Section 11 of the U.P. Fire Prevention and Fire Safety Act, 2005 came to be made out and a complaint in this regard was filed before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad, in which, case was registered as complaint case no. 78256 of 2024, in which, on 07.09.2024, summoning order came to be passed. 7. Questioning the summoning order dated 07.09.2024, summoning the applicant under Section 11 of the U.P. Fire Prevention and Fire Safety Act, 2005, the present application has been preferred. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the summoning order cannot be sustained for more than one year, firstly, no offences are made out and secondly, the same is totally non-speaking, unreasonable and even it does not decide the case of the complainant, so as to, prima facie, satisfy the fact that the offences are made out. He seeks to rely upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in M/s J.M. Laboratories and Others vs State of Andhra Pradesh and Another, 2025 INSC 127. It is further submitted that no offences are made out as the applicant is not connected to the said offences. 9. Learned AGA, on the other hand, has submitted that from bare reading of the complaint and documents on record, prima facie, offences are made out, however, he could not dispute the fact that the summoning order has been passed without recording any reasoning and it is not as per the mandate of Hon'ble Apex Court in M/s J.M. Laboratories and Others (supra). He submits that the summoning order be set-aside and remitted back to court below to pass a fresh order. 10. I have heard the submissions so made across the bar and perused the record. The summoning order dated 07.09.2024, summoning the applicant under Section 11 of the U.P. Fire Prevention and Fire Safety Act, 2005 which reads as under:- "आज यह आरोप पत्र न्यायालय मे प्रस्तुत हुआ। अवलोिकत िकया। आरोप पत्र दजर् रिजस्टर हो। प्रसंज्ञान िलया जाता है। अिभयुक्त के िवरुद्ध समन िदनांक 07.12.24 के िलए जारी हो।" NA528 No. 30197 of 2025 2 11. A close reading of summoning order dated 07.09.2024, which reveals that the same is non-speaking, unreasonable and cryptic, which does not even show that there is any satisfaction recorded with respect to application/attraction of the penal sections. 12. In M/s J.M. Laboratories and Others (supra), Hon'ble Apex Court has observed in paragraph no. 9 as under:- "9. In the present case also, no reasons even for the namesake have been assigned by the learned Magistrate. The summoning order is totally a non- speaking one. We therefore find that in light of the view taken by us in criminal appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2345 of 2024 titled "INOX Air Products Limited Now Known as INOX Air Products Private Limited and Another v. The State of Andhra Pradesh", and the legal position as has been laid down by this Court in a catena of judgments including in the cases of Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Another v. Special Judicial Magistrate and Others, Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation, Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda and Others and Krishna Lal Chawla and Others. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, the present appeal deserves to be allowed." 13. Since, the summoning order does not test the mandate of Hon'ble Apex Court as referred to above, thus the summoning order cannot be sustained and is liable to be set-aside. Accordingly, the application is being decided in following terms, which are as follows:- (a) The order dated 07.09.2024 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad in complaint case no. 78256/2024 (State vs/ Brijesh Upadhayaya), summoning the applicant under Section 11 of the U.P. Fire Prevention and Fire Safety Act, 2005 is set-aside. (b) The matter stands remitted back to the court below to pass a fresh order. (c) For facilitation and early disposal, certified copy of the order be submitted by the parties to the court below by 16th September, 2025. 14. Needless to pointout that this Court has not entered into the merits of the case and it is for the court below to pass a fresh order strictly in accordance with law. NA528 No. 30197 of 2025 3 15. The applicant stands disposed of accordingly. September 4, 2025 #Vik/- NA528 No. 30197 of 2025 4 (Vikas Budhwar,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIKRAM GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad