HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 529 BNSS No. - 4394 of 2026 Court No. - 78 HON'BLE DR. AJAY KUMAR-II, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The present application under Section 529 of BNSS has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to direct the concerned Court /Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar to take cognizance on the chargesheet dated 12.04.2026, under Sections 318(4), 336 (2), 336(3), 340(2), 329(4) BNSS and summon the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 and same is pending before the concerned Court within stipulated period as fixed by this Court. 3. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the above prayer on the ground that present relief sought by the learned counsel for the applicant cannot be granted at all as it would tantamount to jurisdiction to act in a particular manner, it will divest it from its discretionary power while taking cognizance. Therefore, the present petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. At the very outset, a pointed query was made by this Court to the learned counsel for the applicant that how this application is maintainable, whereby a direction has been sought for the concerned Court to take cognizance on the charge sheet dated 12.04.2026 and to summon the opposite party nos. 2 and 3. Learned counsel for the applicant failed to answer this query of this Court. This Court again explained its query and asked learned counsel for the applicant that for taking cognizance on a charge sheet, a Court has to go through the evidence recorded in case diary and after going through the case diary, when it comes to the conclusion that a case for taking cognizance is made out, it accordingly, passes an order for taking cognizance. Equally when after going through the case diary, if (Court concerned) comes to the conclusion that no case for taking cognizance is made out, then it passes Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rajeev Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Smt. Rajani Paliwal Shukla .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s) appropriate order accordingly. However, giving direction as sought by the applicant in this application, it would certainly amount to interference in the jurisdiction of Court concerned and would certainly divest such a Court of its jurisdiction to take or not to take cognizance in the light of evidence recorded in the case diary. Such a direction would force Court concerned to take cognizance even when in its opinion no case for taking cognizance is made out. Learned counsel for the applicant could not dispute the aforesaid position of law. Therefore, relief sought by way of present application is wholly, misconceived and is hereby refused. 5. A perusal of the certified copy of order sheet reveals that no order on cognizance is passed by Court below till date, inspite of the fact that charge sheet has been received on 02.05.2026. A casual and lackadaisical approach cannot be appreciated at the stage of taking cognizance and therefore, it is expected from Court below that issue of cognizance be decided at the earliest without unnecessary adjourning the matter. If for some genuine reason, case is to be adjourned, a speaking order should be passed. 6. It is also provided that in the event there is any legal impediment before the Court concerned in disposal of the case, then the Court concerned shall pass an appropriate order disclosing the legal impediment as to why the proceedings of the above mentioned case cannot be proceeded with. 7. With the aforesaid observations/direction, the present application is disposed of. September 11, 2026 Monika NA529 No. 4394 of 2026 2 (Dr. Ajay Kumar-II,J.) Digitally signed by :- MONIKA KESARWANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad