Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 5944 (ALL)

QAYUM v. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

NA528/37618/2026 · 2026-09-08

Gautam Chowdhary

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 37618 of 2026 Court No. - 75 HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J. 1. The present application u/s 528 BNSS has been filed challenging the cognizance order dated 24.12.2018 as well as charge sheet dated 20.02.2018 and the entire proceeding of Case No. 583 of 2018, arising out of Case Crime No. 410 of 2018, under Section 3/5/8 of U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, Police Station Asmoli, District Sambhal. 2. Counsel for the applicant confines his arguments to the first part of the submission that the cognizance order is bereft of application of mind and has been passed on the cyclostyled copy. He thus argues that the cognizance order suffers from the vice of non-application of mind and therefore is liable to be set aside on that ground alone. In support of his submission, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Megh Nath Gupta & another Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2008 (62) ACC 826 as well as Single Judge judgment and order passed by this Court in the case of Ankit Vs. State of U.P. and another [(2009) (9) ADJ 778] on an Application No. 19647 of 2009 filed under Section 482 CrPC on 15.10.2009. He, thus, argues that the summoning order is liable to be set aside in view of the well settled law of this Court. He also placed before me several orders passed by this Court whereby similar orders have been set aside by this Court and the matters have been remanded before the Trial Court for fresh orders in accordance with law. 3. A perusal of the cognizance order impugned in the present proceedings clearly demonstrates that there was no application of mind whatsoever prior to the passing of the summoning order, which has been repelled by Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Abdul Hafeez Farooqui, Irshad Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Qayum .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) this Court in various judgments. 4. In view of the categorical pronouncements of this Court, the impugned order dated 24.02.2018 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Sambhal in the aforementioned case, is set aside and the matter is remanded before the concerned Magistrate for passing fresh orders of summoning and cognizance if it deems fit. 5. Consequently, the present application is allowed in part and the impugned order dated 24.02.2018 is set aside in terms of the order passed above. 6. Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned Court below for its compliance as stated above. September 9, 2026 Mustaqeem. NA528 No. 37618 of 2026 2 (Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHD MUSTAQEEM KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad