Allahabad High Court
Rajib Lochan Pal /Rajeev Lochan And ... vs State Of U.P. And Another on 24 September, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:172441
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 35186 of 2025
Rajib Lochan Pal /Rajeev Lochan And Another
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Abhinav Prasad
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
with
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 35215 of 2025
Rajib Lochan Pal/Rajeev Lochan And Another
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Abhinav Prasad
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
with
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 35275 of 2025
Rajib Lochan Pal/Rajeev Lochan And Another
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Abhinav Prasad
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 75
HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.
1. Heard Shri Abhinav Prasad, learned counsel for the applicants in the leading and connected C1 & C2 applications and Sri Moti Lal, learned AGA for the State.
2. Today instructions have been forwarded by Shri Moti Lal, in leading and connected applications, is taken on record and according to him, they are self-sufficient and he does not propose to file any affidavit, thus, with the consent of the parties, the application is being decided at the fresh stage.
3. The case set out in the leading application is that an exparte inspection report is alleged to be submitted on 22.03.2025 in the factory/ CNG Filling Station of the applicants under the provisions of Minimum Wages Act, 1952 and U.P. Factories Act, 1948, on gathering knowledge of the exparte inspection report dated 22.03.2025, the applicants filed their objection on 01.04.2025 alongwith relevant documents to counter the allegations made in the exparte inspection report. However, the complaint came to be filed on 17.06.2025 for the violations of Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948, for alleged violation of Section 61 Rule 77, Section 62 Rule 78 and Section 31 Rule 56 and the rules framed thereinunder and on 21.06.2025, the applicants came to be summoned in Complaint Case No. 94418 of 2025 by the Court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar, order whereof is being quoted hereinunder:
"?? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ??????? ?????? ??? ?? ??????? ? ?????????? ???? ???? ??? ???? ??????? ??? ?????????? ??? ?????? ?????????? ????? ????? ?????? 18-7-25 ?? ??? ???"
4. As regards, connected C1 application is that here also an exparte inspection report is alleged to be submitted on 22.03.2025 in the factory/ CNG Filling Station of the applicants under the provisions of Minimum Wages Act, 1952 and U.P. Factories Act, 1948, when the applicants came to know about the exparte inspection report, an objection came to be preferred on 01.04.2025 and thereafter on 17.06.2025, a complaint came to be filed for the violations of Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948, for alleged violation of Section 41B(4) and on 21.06.2025, the applicants came to be summoned in Complaint Case No. 94420 of 2025 by the Court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar, order whereof is being quoted hereinunder:
"?? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ??????? ?????? ??? ?? ??????? ? ?????????? ???? ???? ??? ???? ??????? ??? ?????????? ??? ?????? ?????????? ????? ????? ?????? 18-7-25 ?? ??? ???"
5. With regard to the connected C2 application is that an exparte inspection report is alleged to be submitted on 22.03.2025 in the factory/ CNG Filling Station of the applicants under the provisions of Minimum Wages Act, 1952 and U.P. Factories Act, 1948, on gathering knowledge of the exparte inspection report dated 22.03.2025, the applicants filed their objection on 01.04.2025 alongwith relevant documents to counter the allegations made in the exparte inspection report. However, the complaint came to be filed on 17.06.2025 for the violations of Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948, for alleged violation of Rule 123, Section 6 Rule 3 and Rule 62B and the rules framed thereinunder and on 21.06.2025, the applicants came to be summoned in Complaint Case No. 94419 of 2025 by the Court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar, order whereof is being quoted hereinunder:
"?? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ??????? ?????? ??? ?? ??????? ? ?????????? ???? ???? ??? ???? ??????? ??? ?????????? ??? ?????? ?????????? ????? ????? ?????? 18-7-25 ?? ??? ???"
6. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the from the perusal of the complaint itself would reveal that no offences are made out against the applicants, post enforcement of the BNSS w.e.f. 01.07.2024 now first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 223 BNSS mandates the Magistrate to put to notice the accused before at pre-cognizance stage. He further submits that the summoning order is non-speaking and unreasoned and even it does not recite the case of the complainant less to say about recording of any prima facie satisfaction of the penal sections. In order to bolster the said submission, reliance has also been placed upon the judgment in the case of M/s. JM Laboratories vs State of Andhra Pradesh 2025 INSC 127 and also support the submissions with regard to adherence of the mandatory provisions under first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 223 BNSS. He seeks to rely upon the judgment in the coordinate Bench of this Court in Application U/S 482 No. 10390 of 2024; Prateek Agarwal v. State of U.P. and another. He, however, submits that the summoning order be set aside and the matter be remitted back to Court below to pass fresh orders.
7. Learned AGA on the other hand submits that though offences are made out from the bare look of the complaint as the applicants has violated the provisions of Act and Rules in question, however, he could not dispute the fact that the mandatory requirement of issuing notice and according opportunity to the applicants- accused at pre-cognizance stage had not been done in term of first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 223 BNSS and further the summoning order is cryptic and it does not as per the mandate of Hon'ble Apex in M/s. JM Laboratories (supra). However, he submits that the summoning order be set aside and the matter be remitted back to Court below to pass fresh orders.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records carefully.
9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of JM Laboratories (supra), para 9 whereof is quoted hereinunder.-
"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."
10. Since the summoning order is cryptic, non-speaking and unreasoned and it does not disclose the issue relatable to putting the applicants to notice in view of the provisions contained under first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 223 of the BNSS, thus this Court has no option to set aside the summoning order, accordingly, the application decided in the following manner:
(a) The summoning order dated 21.06.2025 passed by Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar in Case No.94418 of 2025 (leading application), summoning order dated 21.06.2025 passed by Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar in Case No.94420 of 2025 (connected C1 application), summoning order dated 21.06.2025 passed by Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar in Case No.94419 of 2025 (connected C2 application) are set aside.
(b). The matter stands remitted back to pass fresh order strictly in accordance with law.
11. For facilitating early disposal, the party shall furnish the certified copy of the order before the court below by 17.10.2025 and the court below shall proceed to decide the said proceeding with most expedition.
12. Needless to point out that the Court has not adjudicated upon the merits of the case.
13. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.
14. Instructions have been filed today is taken on record and marked as Appendix-A.
(Vikas Budhwar,J.)
September 24, 2025
A. Prajapati
