HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 31222 of 2025 Court No. - 71 HON'BLE RAJ BEER SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant 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 entire proceedings, including charge-sheet dated 28.06.2020 as well as cognizance / summoning order dated 08.10.2020, of Case No. 14366 of 2020 (State Vs. Madan Maurya), arising out of Case Crime No. 742 of 2019, under Sections 420, 406, 419 I.P.C., Police Station- Sigra, District- Varanasi, pending before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi. 3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant 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 applicant. 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 the summoning order has been passed in a mechanical manner without application of judicial mind and thus, the impugned cognizance/ summoning order is not sustainable. It is further Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rabindra Bahadur Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Madan Maurya .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) submitted that by impugned summoning order dated 08.10.2020 applicant has been summoned for offence under Sections 420, 406, 419 I.P.C. and as per law laid down in case of Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another 2024 SCC Online SC 2248, the offence of cheating viz-a-viz criminal breach of trust are independent and distinct and both cannot exist simultaneously and on this account also the impugned summoning order is liable to be set aside. 4. Learned A.G.A. submits that a prima-facie case is made out against the applicant 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 08.10.2020 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, 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. NA528 No. 31222 of 2025 2 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. Further, by impugned order applicant has been summoned for offence under Sections 420, 406, 419 I.P.C. and as per law laid down in case of Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another 2024 SCC Online SC 2248, the offence of cheating viz-a- viz criminal breach of trust are independent and distinct and both cannot exist simultaneously in same set of facts and on this account also the impugned summoning order is liable to be set aside. 10. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned cognizance / summoning order dated 08.10.2020, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi, is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the court concerned to pass an order on cognizance/ summoning afresh expeditiously in accordance with law. 11. The application u/s 528 BNSS is finally disposed of in above terms. September 22, 2025 'SP'/- NA528 No. 31222 of 2025 3 (Raj Beer Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad