Rajeev Kumar Rastogi vs State Of U.P. And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 6924 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Rajeev Kumar Rastogi vs State Of U.P. And Another on 22 August, 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:145254
 
Court No. - 75
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 9156 of 2025 (Leading)
 

 
Applicant :- Rajeev Kumar Rastogi
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Hesamuddin Khan
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 
With
 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 9178 of 2025 (Connected C1)
 

 
Applicant :- Rajeev Kumar Rastogi
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Hesamuddin Khan
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 
With
 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 9181 of 2025 (Connected C2)
 

 
Applicant :- Rajeev Kumar Rastogi
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Hesamuddin Khan
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 
With
 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 9306 of 2025 (Connected C3)
 

 
Applicant :- Rajeev Kumar Rastogi
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Hesamuddin Khan
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 
With
 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 9329 of 2025 (Connected C4)
 

 
Applicant :- Rajeev Kumar Rastogi
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Hesamuddin Khan
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 
With
 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 10084 of 2025 (Connected C5)
 

 
Applicant :- Rajeev Kumar Rastogi
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Hesamuddin Khan
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
 

1. Heard Sri M. H. Khan, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Vikas Sharma as well as Pankaj Kumar Rai, learned State Law Officers for the State.

2. A joint statement has been made by learned counsel for the parties that they do not propose to file any affidavit and the application be decided on the basis of the documents available on record. With the consent of the parties, the application be decided at the fresh stage.

3. The facts of the leading case are that with regard to an inspection conducted in the premises of the applicant and inspection report was preferred on 01.10.2022 and thereafter, a complaint came to be preferred on 09.12.2022 before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhabad for the offences under Section 92 of the Factories Act for contravention of the provisions contained under Section 112 Rule 122, Section-6 Rule-8, and Section-79 read with Rule-102 of the Factories Act, 1948, and the Uttar Pradesh Factory Rules, 1950.

4. Thereafter, in leading application, the applicant came to be summoned on 17.01.2023 by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate in Complaint Case No. 307 of 2023, under Section-92 of Factories Act, 1948 for contravention of Section-112 Rule-122, Section-6 Rule-8, and Section-79 read with Rule-102 of the Factories Act, 1948, and the Uttar Pradesh Factory Rules, 1950, order whereof is quoted hereinunder.-

"?? ???????? ????? ????? ??????? ?? ??????? ?????? ??????? ???? 92 ??????? ???? 1948 ????? ???? ???? ??????? ? ?????? ??????? ??? ???????? ?? ??????? ????? ??????: 24/2/23 ?? ??? ???? ???"

5. Insofar as the the applicant in Connected C1 application came to be summoned on 17.01.2023 by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate in Complaint Case No. 309 of 2023, under Section-96A of Factories Act, 1948 for contravention of Section- 41-B(1) read with Rule-63-C, Section-41-B Rule-63-B, and Section-41B(4) of the Factories Act, 1948, and the Uttar Pradesh Factory Rules, 1950, order whereof is quoted hereinunder.-

"?? ???????? ????? ????? ??????? ?? ??????? ?????? ??????? ???? 96A ??????? ???? 1948 ????? ???? ???? ??????? ? ?????? ??????? ?? ? ???????? ?? ??????? ????? ??????: 24/2/23 ?? ??? ???? ???"

6. The applicant in Connected C2 application came to be summoned on 17.01.2023 by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate in Complaint Case No. 306 of 2023, under Section-92 of Factories Act, 1948 for contravention of Section-41-G read with Rule 62-B, Section-110 Rule-120, and Section-61 Rule-77 of the Factories Act, 1948, and the Uttar Pradesh Factory Rules, 1950, order whereof is quoted hereinunder.-

"?? ???????? ????? ????? ??????? ?? ??????? ?????? ??????? ???? 92 ??????? ???? 1948 ????? ???? ???? ???????? ?????? ??????? ??? ???????? ?? ??????? ????? ??????: 24/2/23 ?? ??? ???? ???"

7. The applicant in Connected C3 application came to be summoned on 17.01.2023 by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate in Complaint Case No. 305 of 2023, under Section-92 of Factories Act, 1948 for contravention of Section-62 read with Rule-78, Section-45 read with Rule-66, and Section-21 of the Factories Act, 1948, and the Uttar Pradesh Factory Rules, 1950, order whereof is quoted hereinunder.-

"?? ???????? ????? ????? ??????? ?? ??????? ?????? ??????? ???? 92 ??????? ???? 1948 ????? ???? ???? ???????? ?????? ??????? ??? ???????? ?? ??????? ????? ??????: 24/2/23 ?? ??? ???? ???"

8. The applicant in Connected C4 application came to be summoned on 17.01.2023 by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate in Complaint Case No. 304 of 2023, under Section-92 of Factories Act, 1948 for contravention of Rule-123, Section-6 read with Rule-7(a), and Section-108 read with Rule-118 of the Factories Act, 1948, and the Uttar Pradesh Factory Rules, 1950, order whereof is quoted hereinunder.-

"?? ???????? ????? ????? ??????? ?? ??????? ?????? ??????? ???? 92 ??????? ??????? ????? ???? ???? ??????? ? ?????? ??????? ??? ???????? ?? ??????? ????? ??????: 24/2/23 ?? ??? ???? ???"

9. The applicant in Connected C5 application came to be summoned on 17.01.2023 by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate in Complaint Case No. 308 of 2023, under Section-92 of Factories Act, 1948 for contravention of Section 38 read with Rule-61, Section-31 Rule-56, and Section-7A of the Factories Act, 1948, and the Uttar Pradesh Factory Rules, 1950, order whereof is quoted hereinunder.-

"?? ???????? ????? ????? ??????? ?? ??????? ?????? ??????? ???? 92 ??????? ???? 1948 ????? ???? ???? ???????? ?????? ??????? ??? ???????? ?? ??????? ????? ??????: 24/02/23 ?? ??? ???? ???"

10. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the summoning orders passed in leading and connected C1 to C5 applications cannot be sustained for the simple reason that they are non speaking, unreasoned and even they do not recite the case of the complainant and further there is no recital of sections under which the applicants have been summoned. Further submissions is that the complaint stood preferred on 09.12.2022 and the inspection took place on 01.10.2022, however, the complaint stood preferred on the date when the summoning order was issued, thus, there has been infraction of the provisions contained under Section 106 of the Factories Act, 1948. Learned counsel for the applicants seeks to rely upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in M/s JM Laboratories vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 2025 INSC 127 to buttress the submission that the summoning order if it is non speaking unreasoned then it cannot be said to be sustained.

11. Learned State Law Officers, on the other hand, have submitted that from the perusal of the complaint it is apparent that there has been violations of the provisions under which the applicant has been summoned but they could not dispute the fact that summoning orders have been passed not as per the mandate of Hon'ble Apex Court in M/s JM Laboratories (supra). They submit that the order be set aside, matter be remitted back to the court below to pass a fresh order.

12. I have heard the submissions so made across the bar and perused the record.

13. Apparently, post conduction of the inspection on 01.10.2022 the complaint is stated to have been lodged on 09.12.2022, however, the summoning orders are cryptic, non speaking and unreasoned and even it does not recite the case of the complainant less to say about prima facie satisfaction recorded with regard to attraction of penal sections. In M/s JM Laboratories (supra) observed as under.-

"9. In the present case also, no reasons even for the namesake have been assigned by the learned Magistrate. The summoning order is totally a non-speaking one. We therefore find that in light of the view taken by us in criminal appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2345 of 2024 titled "INOX Air Products Limited Now Known as INOX Air Products Private Limited and Another v. The State of Andhra Pradesh", and the legal position as has been laid down by this Court in a catena of judgments including in the cases of Pepsi Foods Ltd. and another Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and others, Sunil Bharti Mittal Vs. Central Central Bureau of Investigation, Mehmood U Rehman Vs. Khazir Mohammad Tunda and others and Krishna Lal Chawla and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, the present appeal deserves to be allowed."

14. Since the summoning order is not as per the mandate of the Hon'ble Apex Court in M/s JM Laboratories (supra).

15. Accordingly, the application is decided in the following terms.-

(a) the summoning order dated 17.01.2023 passed in Complaint Case No. 307 of 2023, 309 of 2023, 306 of 2023,305 of 2023, 304 of 2023, 308 of 2023 in leading as well as connected C1 to C5 applications are set aside; (b) matter stands remitted back to the court below to pass a fresh order strictly in accordance with law; (c) for facilitation and earlier disposal, the certified copy of the order be produced before the court below by 05.09.2025.

16. With the above observations, the application stands disposed of.

17. Needless to point out that passing of the order may not be construed to be an expression that this Court has adjudicated on the merits of the matter as the summoning order has been set aside on the ground that it is non speaking and unreasoned.

Order Date :- 22.8.2025

Rajesh