[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Allahabad High Court
Mohd. Shadab vs State Of U.P. And Another on 10 December, 2025
Author: Gautam Chowdhary
Bench: Gautam Chowdhary
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:82603
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3156 of 2021
Mohd. Shadab
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Farhan Alam Osmany
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 29
HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.
1. In compliance of the order dated 16.09.2021 the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hardoi vide its letter dated 29.08.2022 has informed that the opposite party No. 2-Vijay Pal, has died two years earlier.
2. Heard Ms. Jaya Tripathi, Advocate along with Shri Farhan Alam Osmany, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Ashok Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
3. The present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the cognizance/ summoning order dated 31.01.2020 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 3, Hardoi, in Case No. 981 of 2020 (State Vs. Mohd. Shadabad), arising out of F.I.R. No. 323 of 2019, under Section 3(2) of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, Police Station Sandila, District Hardoi, as well as to quash the charge sheet No. 261 of 2019 dated 25.06.2019 including the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case pending before the court concerned.
4. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that the instant matter pertains to civil in nature, a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 16.09.2021 while issuing notice to the opposite party No. 2 had directed that till the next date of listing the applicant shall not be arrested in lieu of any warrant etc. which might have been issued by the trial court in the above mentioned case.
6. Today when the case is taken up, learned counsel for the applicant confines his arguments to the first part of the submission that the cognizance/ summoning order dated 31.01.2020 is bereft of application of mind and has been passed on the cyclostyled copy. He thus argues that the said cognizance/ summoning 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 impugned cognizance/ 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.
7. A perusal of the cognizance/ summoning order impugned in the present proceedings clearly demonstrates that there was no application of mind whatsoever requires prior to passing of the order, which has been repelled by this Court in various judgments.
8. In view of the categorical pronouncements of this Court, the impugned order dated 31.01.2020 passed in the above mentioned case is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded before the concerned Magistrate for passing fresh orders of summoning and cognizance if it deems fit, within a month from the date of production of a certified copy of the order before it.
9. Consequently, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed in part and the impugned order dated 31.01.2020 is set aside in terms of the order passed above.
(Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.)
December 10, 2025
Mustaqeem
