Allahabad High Court
Anushthan Tripathi vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. ... on 26 August, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:50029
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6782 of 2025
Court No. - 14
HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.
1. Supplementary Affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant is taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.
3. Instant application under section 482 Cr.P.C./528 of the B.N.S.S.,2023, has been filed with the prayer to quash the Impugned Charge Sheet No. 01 dated 06.06.2018 (Annexure No.1) filed in Case No. 5041/2018 (State vs. Anushthan Tripathi). FIR No. 0731/2017. Under Section 147. 149, 341, 504, 506, 323, 427 & 352 I.P.C. P.S. Chinhat, District- Lucknow and the impugned Summoning Order dated 30.11.2018 (Annexure No.2) in Case No. 5041/2018 (State vs. Anushthan Tripathi), FIR No. 0731/2017, Under Section 147, 149, 341, 504, 506, 323, 427 & 352 L.P.C, P.S. Chinhat. District-Lucknow.
4. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that there is allegation that more than twenty persons, have assaulted the alleged injured, but, there is no injury at all. He added that the chargesheet has been filed against one accused i.e. the present applicant. He next added that except apart the statement recorded under section 161 of Cr.P.C., there is no evidence at all and thus, the filing of chargesheet as well as summoning order itself, vitiates in the eyes of law.
5. In addition, he argued that the summoning order dated 30-11-2018 is passed without application of mind, as there is a proforma order while filling in the blanks, is apparent in the summoning order impugned herein.
6. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on the Judgment and order dated 02-04-2024 passed in application under section 482 of Cr.P.C. bearing no. 3076 of 2024, Mohd. Suhail Vs State of U.P. and Another,decided on 02-04-2024 and has referred the relevant paragraphs, which are reproduced hereinunder:-
"In view of the above, this Court finds and observes that the conduct of the judicial officers concerned in passing orders on printed proforma by filling up the blanks without application of judicial mind is objectionable and deserves to be deprecated. The summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter and the order must reflect that Magistrate had applied his mind to the facts as well as law applicable thereto, whereas the impugned summoning order was passed in mechanical manner without application of judicial mind and without satisfying himself as to which offence were prima-facie being made out against the applicant on the basis of the allegations made by the complainant. the impugned cognizance order passed by the learned Magistrate is against the settled judicial norms.
In light of the judgments referred to above, it is explicitly clear that the order dated 11.05.2015 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, District-Gonda is cryptic and does not stand the test of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Consequently, the cognizance and summoning order dated 11.05.2015 cannot be legally sustained, as the Magistrate failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him resulting in miscarriage of justice.
Accordingly, the present Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C succeeds and is allowed. The impugned cognizance and summoning order dated 11.05.2015 passed by the Judicial Magistrate-II, Gonda, is hereby quashed in Case No.110 of 2015 (State of U.P. vs. Aftab Ahmad and Others) pertaining to F.I.R./Crime No.321/2014 under Section 406/323/504/506/34 I.P.C. registered at Police Station-Chapiya, District-Gonda on 09.12.2014."
7. Referring the aforesaid, he submits that this practice has been deprecated and even then, the trial courts are passing the orders on proforma. He added that in this view of the matter, the summoning order dated 30-11-2018, may be set aside.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State though has opposed the matter on merit, but, he could not dispute the contention of learned counsel for the applicant that the summoning order has been passed on proforma.
9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of material placed on records, it transpires that the summoning order dated 30-11-2018, is under challenge on the ground that the same has been passed on proforma and as such, there is no application of mind. The law is settled in the case of Mohd. Suhail(Supra).
10. Considering the aforesaid, this court finds merit in this application. Thus, the summoning order dated 30-11-2018, is hereby set aside.
11. The matter is remitted back to the learned trial court concerned to pass a fresh order considering the material available before it, within a period of 45 days from the date of this order.
12. The applicant is directed to cooperate with the proceedings before the learned trial court and he will not seek any adjournment without any cogent reason.
13. With the aforesaid observations, the instant application is hereby disposed of.
August 26, 2025
AKS
