Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:64982 Court No. - 52 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4466 of 2025 Applicant :- Mohd. Ashif And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mahesh Chandra Maurya,Santosh Kr. Singh Paliwal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J. As per the compliance affidavit filed by the State, notice upon opposite party no.2 is sufficient. No one has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no.2. On the basis of instructions received by learned A.G.A. summons was served upon applicant no.3 on 10.11.2024 and upon applicant nos.1 & 2 on 12.11.2024. Heard Mr. Mahesh Chandra Maurya, learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State. The instant application has been filed by the applicants to quash the charge-sheet dated 09.06.2017 as well as summoning order dated 26.09.2017 passed by Special Sessions Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Bareilly and the entire criminal proceeding of Case No.116/2017 (State Vs. Mohd. Ashif), arising out of Case Crime No.284 of 2017, under Sections 323, 325, 504, 506 I.P.C. & Sections 3(1)Da, 3(1)Dha of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Baheri, District Bareilly, pending in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (S.D.)-5/A.C.J.M., Bareilly. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that though the charge sheet has been placed before the Court of Juvenile Justice Board as mentioned at page-17 of the application, however, cognizance has been taken by Special Sessions Judge, S.C/S.T. Act, Bareilly. He further submits that Special Sessions Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Bareilly has summoned the applicants by order dated 26.09.2017 on a printed format, without applying his judicial mind and the same is vague, ambiguous and nullity. He next submits that the perusal of the summoning order indicates that except for directing the office to summon the applicants, absolutely no reasons have been mentioned in support thereof. He further submits that it is settled law that every orders are to be judged on reasons recorded therein. He therefore, submits that summoning order be set aside. Learned A.G.A. could not dispute the aforesaid fact, however, as regards as the arguments as averred by learned counsel for the applicants that cognizance order has been passed by Special Sessions Judge and not by the Juvenile Justice Board has no legs to stand as the applicants have to be summoned by Special Sessions Judge and trial in case required is to be conducted by the Juvenile Justice Board. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present application. It is an admitted position that the summoning order dated 26.09.2017 has been passed without application of judicial mind on a printed format. Such cognizance/summoning orders passed on a printed proforma has already been set aside by this Court while passing a detail order dated 11th January, 2020 in Application U/S. 482 No. 41617 of 2019 (Vishnu Kumar Gupta & Another Vs. State of U.P. & Another). Accordingly, for the reasons recorded in the case of Vishnu Kumar Gupta (Supra), the summoning order dated 26.09.2017 is set aside. The Special Sessions Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Bareilly, after perusing the entire records shall pass a fresh speaking and reasoned order, in accordance with law, preferably within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. With the aforesaid directions/observations, this application stands allowed. Office is directed to sent a copy of this order to the Special Sessions Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Bareilly, forthwith. Order Date :- 28.4.2025 Rahul. Digitally signed by :- RAHUL GOSWAMI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- RAHUL GOSWAMI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad