2025:UHC:5724 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS C482 No. 1203 of 2016 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Mani Kumar, learned counsel for applicant. 2. Mr. Deepak Bisht, learned Deputy A.G. along with Mr. Prabhat Kandpal, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant seeking quashing of the charge-sheet dated 15.06.2015 as well as the cognizance/summoning order dated 30.11.2015, passed in Criminal Case No. 5337 of 2015, State vs. Rajeev Gupta & Others, under Sections 352, 504, 506, 147 read with Section 34 IPC pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. 4. Brief facts of the case are that respondent no.2/complainant lodged an F.I.R. against the applicants alleging that on 29.03.2015 at about 9:30 PM, the applicant no.1 called respondent no.2, Virendra Tiwari, and Pudena Sahni to his house. It is alleged that construction work on a government road was underway in front of the applicant’s house, which led to a dispute between applicant no.1 and his neighbor, Satpal Kumar. 5. It is also alleged that though the dispute had allegedly been resolved with the intervention of certain individuals, including Anand Sharma, Virendra Tiwari, and the husband of a ward member, the applicant continued the construction work against the 2025:UHC:5724 terms of the compromise and when the same was protested, it is alleged that Jitendra, brother of applicant no.1, brought a filled gas cylinder, opened its pin, and threw it in the direction of Pudena Sahni, Anand Sharma, Virendra Tiwari, and the contractor and laborers present at the site. It is further alleged that other family members of the applicant also threatened those present. On the basis of the F.I.R., after investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet and the Magistrate took cognizance and issued summons. Hence, the present petition. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant would further submit that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated. The F.I.R. is highly doubtful and appears to have been lodged due to local rivalry and vested interests; that, respondent no.2 along with other individuals projecting themselves as local leaders, allegedly instigated Satpal Kumar to encroach upon land designated as Green Belt, which is government property where no construction can legally be undertaken. 7. He would further submit that with regard to the said land dispute, applicant no.1 and others had instituted Civil Suit No. 56 of 2012, which was decreed on 31.03.2016, restraining Satpal Kumar from raising any construction on the land in question. It is also argued that the present F.I.R. has been lodged during the pendency of the said civil suit by Satpal in collusion with respondent no.2, Pudena Sahni, and Virendra Tiwari. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant would further submit that there is no independent witness to the alleged incident and it is admitted in the F.I.R. that no one sustained 2025:UHC:5724 injuries. He would further submit that the charge-sheet was submitted by the Investigating Officer in collusion with respondent no.2, and the cognizance order was passed in a mechanical and casual manner. He would further submit that the impugned order is a cyclostyled or proforma order devoid of reasons and passed without judicial application of mind thus being legally unsustainable. 9. Per contra, learned State counsel opposed the submissions and supported the impugned summoning order. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 11. The main ground raised by learned counsel for the applicant is that the cognizance/summoning order has been passed in a routine and mechanical manner using a printed proforma, without proper application of judicial mind. 12. In Ankit vs. State of U.P. & Another, 2009 (9) ADJ 778, the Hon’ble Court held that though a detailed reasoned order is not required at the stage of taking cognizance, the Magistrate is still expected to apply judicial mind and cannot mechanically pass orders by merely filling blanks on a printed format. 13. In Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Another vs. Special Judicial Magistrate & Others, (1998) 5 SCC 749, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that summoning of an accused is a serious matter and the Magistrate must be cautious and ensure that the order reflects due consideration of the material placed before the Court. 14. In GHCL Employees Stock Option Trust vs. India Infoline Ltd., (2013) 2 SCC 505, the 2025:UHC:5724 Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that summoning an accused has serious consequences on a person’s reputation and criminal law cannot be set in motion casually or mechanically. 15. A perusal of the summoning order dated 30.11.2015 reveals that it was passed on a printed format without any proper reasoning or application of mind. Considering the serious implications of summoning an accused in a criminal matter, the order should have reflected judicial application to both facts and law, which is evidently lacking in the impugned order. 16. In view of the above, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. The cognizance/summoning order dated 30.11.2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar is hereby quashed. The learned Magistrate is directed to reconsider the issue of taking cognizance and summoning afresh and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law. 17. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (Alok Mahra, J.) 03.07.2025 Mamta 2025:UHC:5724 Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and the matter has to be sent back to the Court below for passing fresh order on the charge sheet after applying judicial mind."(Emphasis supplied)