Allahabad High Court
Vishnu Agarwal And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 2 September, 2025
Author: Deepak Verma
Bench: Deepak Verma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:154629
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2873 of 2025
Vishnu Agarwal And Another
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Padmaker Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
Ashutosh Mishra, G.A., Shailendra Kumar Ojha
Court No. - 72
HON'BLE DEEPAK VERMA, J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed today on behalf of the applicants is taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
3. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants to quash the summoning order dated 16.12.2024 passed by VIIIth Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar, as well as entire proceedings in Misc.Case no.9794 of 2016 (Ramesh Pandey Vs. Vishnu Agarwal and others), arising out of Case Crime No.76 of 2016, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B I.P.C., P.S. Juhi, District Kanpur Nagar, pending in the court of VIIIth Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that opposite party no.2 filed FIR against the applicants as Case Crime No.76 of 2016, under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 417 & 120B I.P.C., Police station Juhi, Kanpur Nagar. Investigating Officer has found nothing material evidence against the applicants and submitted final report. Thereafter, opposite party no.2 moved protest application. Protest application was allowed and learned trial court considering the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer, took cognizance against the applicants exercising jurisdiction under section 191-B Cr.P.C. Applicants challenged the cognizance and summoning order by filing Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No.14392 of 2024 (Vishnu Agarwal and another vs. State of U.P & another) and this Court by order dated 20.09.2024 allowed application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. and set aside the impugned summoning order dated 30.01.2024 and remanded the matter to court concerned to pass fresh order in the light of observation made above. The coordinate Bench of this Court in Paras-13 & 14 of the judgment has observed as under:-
"13. Having heard Mr. Padmaker Pandey, the learned counsel for applicants, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1, Mr. Shailendra Kumar Ojha, the learned counsel representing first informant-opposite party-2 and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that the solitary issue that has emerged for consideration before this Court is as to:- whether after rejecting the police report submitted by the Investigating Officer in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., yet the Magistrate can exercise jurisdiction under Section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C. by taking cognizance upon the said police report and proceed with the matter as a state case.
14. The issue so raised is no longer res-integra and stands concluded by the judgments of this Court in following cases;- (1) Hari Ram Vs. State of U.P. and Another, 2016 ADJ Online, 0185 (Criminal Revision No. 695 of 2001) and (2) Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 8563 of 2023 (Smt. Bhuri Vs. State of U.P. and Another) decided on 15.03.2023. This Court in aforementioned judgments has held that once the Magistrate has rejected (NIRAST) the police report submitted under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. then the Magistrate is denuded of his jurisdiction to take cognizance under Section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C. and proceed with the matter as a state case. In view of above, the order impugned cannot be sustained and is, therefore, liable to be set aside."
5. The coordinate Bench by order dated 30.01.2024 has directed the trial court to take cognizance in pursuance of observation made in Paras-13 & 14 of the said judgment. Trial court without considering the observation made by coordinate bench of this Court, in arbitrary manner again issued summon against the applicants considering the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer.
6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 vehemently opposed the submission raised by learned counsel for the applicants.
7. I have carefully examined the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as well as the other materials brought on record.
8. From perusal of the impugned order it appears that before taking cognizance the learned Magistrate has neither taken into consideration the direction issued by this Hon'ble Court dated 30.01.2024. The trial court without following the observation made in the order dated 30.01.2024 in arbitrary manner considered the material evidence collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation, issued summons against the applicants. The order challenged herein is arbitrary and is not in consonance of direction issued by co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 30.01.2024.
9. Thus, in view of the above and the fact that the impugned order by which cognizance has been taken and issued summon does not reflect any application of mind the same cannot be sustained. This application is allowed. The summoning order dated 16.12.2024 passed in passed by VIIIth Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar, in Misc.Case no.9794 of 2016 (Ramesh Pandey Vs. Vishnu Agarwal and others), arising out of Case Crime No.76 of 2016, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B I.P.C., P.S. Juhi, District Kanpur Nagar, is set aside with the direction that the Magistrate shall pass a fresh order in the matter in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
(Deepak Verma,J.)
September 2, 2025
SKD
