Naeemuddin Siddiqui And Another v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko And Another

1. Heard Sri Vineet Kumar Chaurasia, the learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Rajesh Kumar Shukla, the learned State Law Officer as well as perused the record.

2. The instant application has been filed seeking following main relief(s):- "That for the facts, reasons and circumstances stated in the accompanying affidavit to this petition it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned Charge sheet bearing No.01/2019 dated 28.10.2019 filed in Case No. 5893 of 2020, Case Crime No.402/2019, Under Section-452, 323 and 506 of I.P.C. at P.S.- Saadatganj, District-Lucknow, summoning order dated 18.11.2020 passed by the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 27, Lucknow and order of Bailable Warrant dated 28.10.2025 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate/A.T.S., Lucknow as contained in Annexure No.1, 2 & 3 to the Affidavit filed in support of present Application. It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to stay the entire proceedings arising out of Case No. 5893 of 2020, Case Crime No.402/2019, Under Section-452, 323 and 506 of I.P.C. at P.S.-Saadatganj, District-Lucknow, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate/A.T.S., Lucknow."

3. The proceedings in issue have been assailed/challenged based upon the following two grounds:- (i) The summons have been issued on a printed proforma. (ii) The charge sheet was filed against the accused/applicants under Section(s)- 452, 323, 506, 427, 504, 406 IPC and despite this the Magistrate concerned has summoned the accused/applicants for facing trial under Section(s)- 452, 323, 506 IPC.

4. In support of ground No. (i), as aforesaid, the applicants' counsel has placed reliance on the final order dated 12.11.2021 passed by this Court in Application U/S 482 No. 18616 of 2021 (Rajendra Chaubey and others vs. State of U.P. and another), which reads as under:- 2 A482 No. 10006 of 2025 "Vakalatnama filed by Prabhakar Dubey, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for opposite party no.2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. The instant application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceeding of Case Crime No.0085 of 2020, State vs. Rajendra Chaubey and others, under Sections 323, 506, 452, 188, 427, 325, 308 I.P.C., Section 51 Disaster Management Act and Section 3 Epidemic Diseases Act, Police Station Itwa, District Siddharth Nagar, pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siddharath Nagar, initiated upon the charge sheet dated 16.09.2020 and summoning order dated 13.01.2021. Foremost submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that the Magistrate did not apply his judicial mind at the time of passing the summoning order against the applicant because the impugned summoning order has been passed on a printed proforma, which is not permissible under law. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the judgment in the case of Ankit Vs. State of U.P. & Another; 2009 (9) ADJ 778. Learned counsel for the applicants has further submitted that the impugned first information report does not disclose any cognizable offence against the applicants and the investigation of the matter was carried out in a routine and casual manner and a charge sheet has been filed against the applicants without collecting credible evidence. He has further submitted that the present impugned criminal proceeding is nothing but malicious prosecution and an abuse of process of the Court, therefore, impugned summoning order is liable to be quashed. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the aforesaid contention of learned counsel for the applicants. However, he could not dispute the fact that the impugned summoning order dated 13.01.2021, which is annexed as Annexure No.1 to the affidavit, has been passed on a printed proforma, wherein the name of accused persons and sections has been filed in the blank spaces. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Darshan Singh Ram Kishan v. State of Maharashtra reported in MANU/SC/0089/1971: (1971) 2 SCC 654 has held as under:- "8. As provided by Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a Magistrate may take cognizance of an offence either, (a) upon receiving a complaint, or (b) upon a police report, or (c) upon information received from a person other than a police officer or even upon his own information or suspicion that such an offence has been committed. As has often been held, taking cognizance does not involve any formal action or indeed action of any kind but occurs as soon as a Magistrate applies his mind to the suspected commission of an offence. Cognizance, therefore, takes place at a point when a Magistrate first takes judicial notice of an offence. This is the position whether the Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence on a complaint, or on a police report, or upon information of a person other than a police officer. Therefore, when a Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence upon a police report, prima facie he does so of the offence or offences disclosed in such report." In Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation, AIR 2015 SC 923 (Three Judges Bench) Hon,ble Apex Court held as under: (Emphasis supplied) 3 A482 No. 10006 of 2025 "47. However, the words "sufficient grounds for proceeding" appearing in the Section are of immense importance. It is these words which amply suggest that an opinion is to be formed only after due application of mind that there is sufficient basis for proceeding against the said accused and formation of such an opinion is to be stated in the order itself.." Therefore, it is essential that due application of mind should be reflected from the order taking cognizance. This Court in the case of Ankit vs. State of U.P. (supra) in paragraph nos.10 & 11 has held as under:- "10. Below aforesaid sentence, the seal of the Court containing name of Sri Talevar Singh, the then Judicial Magistrate-III, has been affixed and the learned Magistrate has put his short signature (initial) over his name. The manner in which the impugned order has been prepared shows that the learned Magistrate did not at all apply his judicial mind at the time of passing this order and after the blanks were filled up by some employee of the Court, he has put his initial on the seal of the Court. This method of passing judicial order is wholly illegal. If for the shake of argument, it is assumed that the blanks on the printed proforma were filled up in the handwriting of learned Magistrate, even then the impugned order would be illegal and invalid, because order of taking cognizance or any other judicial order cannot be passed by filling up blanks on the printed proforma. Although as held by this Court in the case of Megh Nath Gupta v. State of U.P., [2008 (62) ACC 826.] in which reference has been made to the cases of Deputy Chief Controller Import and Export v. Roshan Lal Agrawal, [2003 (46) ACC 686 (SC).] U.P. Pollution Control Board

1. Heard Sri Vineet Kumar Chaurasia, the learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Rajesh Kumar Shukla, the learned State Law Officer as well as perused the record.

2. The instant application has been filed seeking following main relief(s):- "That for the facts, reasons and circumstances stated in the accompanying affidavit to this petition it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned Charge sheet bearing No.01/2019 dated 28.10.2019 filed in Case No. 5893 of 2020, Case Crime No.402/2019, Under Section-452, 323 and 506 of I.P.C. at P.S.- Saadatganj, District-Lucknow, summoning order dated 18.11.2020 passed by the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 27, Lucknow and order of Bailable Warrant dated 28.10.2025 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate/A.T.S., Lucknow as contained in Annexure No.1, 2 & 3 to the Affidavit filed in support of present Application. It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to stay the entire proceedings arising out of Case No. 5893 of 2020, Case Crime No.402/2019, Under Section-452, 323 and 506 of I.P.C. at P.S.-Saadatganj, District-Lucknow, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate/A.T.S., Lucknow."

3. The proceedings in issue have been assailed/challenged based upon the following two grounds:- (i) The summons have been issued on a printed proforma. (ii) The charge sheet was filed against the accused/applicants under Section(s)- 452, 323, 506, 427, 504, 406 IPC and despite this the Magistrate concerned has summoned the accused/applicants for facing trial under Section(s)- 452, 323, 506 IPC.

4. In support of ground No. (i), as aforesaid, the applicants' counsel has placed reliance on the final order dated 12.11.2021 passed by this Court in Application U/S 482 No. 18616 of 2021 (Rajendra Chaubey and others vs. State of U.P. and another), which reads as under:- 2 A482 No. 10006 of 2025 "Vakalatnama filed by Prabhakar Dubey, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for opposite party no.2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. The instant application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceeding of Case Crime No.0085 of 2020, State vs. Rajendra Chaubey and others, under Sections 323, 506, 452, 188, 427, 325, 308 I.P.C., Section 51 Disaster Management Act and Section 3 Epidemic Diseases Act, Police Station Itwa, District Siddharth Nagar, pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siddharath Nagar, initiated upon the charge sheet dated 16.09.2020 and summoning order dated 13.01.2021. Foremost submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that the Magistrate did not apply his judicial mind at the time of passing the summoning order against the applicant because the impugned summoning order has been passed on a printed proforma, which is not permissible under law. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the judgment in the case of Ankit Vs. State of U.P. & Another; 2009 (9) ADJ 778. Learned counsel for the applicants has further submitted that the impugned first information report does not disclose any cognizable offence against the applicants and the investigation of the matter was carried out in a routine and casual manner and a charge sheet has been filed against the applicants without collecting credible evidence. He has further submitted that the present impugned criminal proceeding is nothing but malicious prosecution and an abuse of process of the Court, therefore, impugned summoning order is liable to be quashed. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the aforesaid contention of learned counsel for the applicants. However, he could not dispute the fact that the impugned summoning order dated 13.01.2021, which is annexed as Annexure No.1 to the affidavit, has been passed on a printed proforma, wherein the name of accused persons and sections has been filed in the blank spaces. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Darshan Singh Ram Kishan v. State of Maharashtra reported in MANU/SC/0089/1971: (1971) 2 SCC 654 has held as under:- "8. As provided by Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a Magistrate may take cognizance of an offence either, (a) upon receiving a complaint, or (b) upon a police report, or (c) upon information received from a person other than a police officer or even upon his own information or suspicion that such an offence has been committed. As has often been held, taking cognizance does not involve any formal action or indeed action of any kind but occurs as soon as a Magistrate applies his mind to the suspected commission of an offence. Cognizance, therefore, takes place at a point when a Magistrate first takes judicial notice of an offence. This is the position whether the Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence on a complaint, or on a police report, or upon information of a person other than a police officer. Therefore, when a Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence upon a police report, prima facie he does so of the offence or offences disclosed in such report." In Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation, AIR 2015 SC 923 (Three Judges Bench) Hon,ble Apex Court held as under: (Emphasis supplied) 3 A482 No. 10006 of 2025 "47. However, the words "sufficient grounds for proceeding" appearing in the Section are of immense importance. It is these words which amply suggest that an opinion is to be formed only after due application of mind that there is sufficient basis for proceeding against the said accused and formation of such an opinion is to be stated in the order itself.." Therefore, it is essential that due application of mind should be reflected from the order taking cognizance. This Court in the case of Ankit vs. State of U.P. (supra) in paragraph nos.10 & 11 has held as under:- "10. Below aforesaid sentence, the seal of the Court containing name of Sri Talevar Singh, the then Judicial Magistrate-III, has been affixed and the learned Magistrate has put his short signature (initial) over his name. The manner in which the impugned order has been prepared shows that the learned Magistrate did not at all apply his judicial mind at the time of passing this order and after the blanks were filled up by some employee of the Court, he has put his initial on the seal of the Court. This method of passing judicial order is wholly illegal. If for the shake of argument, it is assumed that the blanks on the printed proforma were filled up in the handwriting of learned Magistrate, even then the impugned order would be illegal and invalid, because order of taking cognizance or any other judicial order cannot be passed by filling up blanks on the printed proforma. Although as held by this Court in the case of Megh Nath Gupta v. State of U.P., [2008 (62) ACC 826.] in which reference has been made to the cases of Deputy Chief Controller Import and Export v. Roshan Lal Agrawal, [2003 (46) ACC 686 (SC).] U.P. Pollution Control Board