State of U.P. and Another vs Party(s)

on bail. She further submits that the allegations in the FIR as well as prosecution version is vague and is motivated with malice. She further submits that vakalatnama on behalf of the applicant was signed with permission of the jail Superintendent as he is in jail custody now. The applicant has criminal history of 16 cases and 2 A482 No. 1896 of 2025 the same are duly explained in para 12 of the application. She next submits that there is no plausible evidence or material on record to connect the applicant in the present case except the confessional statement of the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that there is no evidence against the applicant that the informant has paid any amount pursuant to alleged extortion against the applicant. Proceedings initiation against him at the instance of Police under Section 10 of U.P. Goonda Act, 1970, P.S. Bhelupur, District- Varanasi in the year 2024 which has been quashed by this Court vide order dated

28.08.2025 passed in Application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. No. 26164 of 2025.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the summoning order passed by the trial court against the applicant is non-speaking perusal impugned order/summoning order, it is apparent that learned trial court has not applied its judicial mind while passing the summoning order in mechanical manner, therefore, impugned order is also liable to be quashed and set aside. In order to buttress her submission, learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s JM Laboratories And Others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh And Another, reported in 2025 Supreme (SC) 249 in which the judgment and order passed in Criminal Petition No. 5766 of 2023 by learned Single Judge of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amrawati was challenged, which was filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in complaint case no. 1051 of 2023 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool, came to be dismissed. Hon'ble Apex Court allowed the said Criminal Appeal filed by the accused-appellants against order of the High Court and quashed the summoning order passed by the learned Magistrate and set it aside. Para 8 of the judgment is quoted as under: " 8. In the judgment and order of even date 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", we have 3 A482 No. 1896 of 2025 observed thus: "33. It could be seen from the aforesaid order that except recording the submissions of the complainant, no reasons are recorded issuing the process against the accused persons.

34. In this respect, it will be relevant to refer to the following observations of this Court in the case of Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Another v. Special Judicial Magistrate and Others (1998) 5 SCC 749 (supra): "28. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. The Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused."

35. This Court has clearly held that summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. It has been held that the order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the 4 A482 No. 1896 of 2025 case and the law applicable thereto. This Court held that the Magistrate is required to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence, both oral and documentary in support thereof and as to whether that would be sufficient for proceeding against the accused. It has been held that the Magistrate is not a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning the accused.

36. The said law would be consistently following by this Court in a catena of judgments including in the cases of Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2015) 4 SCC 609, Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda and Others (2015) 12 SCC 420 and Krishna Lal Chawla and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (2021) 5 SCC 435.

37. Recently, a Bench of this Court to which one of us (Gavai, J.) was a Member, in the case of Lalankumar Singh and Others v. State of Maharashtra 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1383 (supra), has observed thus: "38. The order of issuance of process is not an empty formality. The Magistrate is required to apply his mind as to whether sufficient ground for proceeding exists in the case or not. The formation of such an opinion is required to be stated in the order itself. The order is liable to be set aside if no reasons are given therein while coming to the conclusion that there is a prima facie case against the accused. No doubt, that the order need not contain detailed reasons. A reference in this respect could be made to the judgment of this Court in the case of Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation9, which reads thus: "51. On the other hand, Section 204 of the Code deals with the issue of process, if in the opinion of the Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence, sufficient ground 5 A482 No. 1896 of 2025 proceeding. This section relates commencement of a criminal proceeding. If the Magistrate taking cognizance of a case (it may be the Magistrate receiving the complaint or to whom it has been transferred under Section 192), upon a consideration of the materials before him (i.e. the complaint, examination of the complainant and his witnesses, if present, or report of inquiry, if any), thinks that there is a prima facie case for proceeding in respect of an offence, he shall issue process against the accused.

52. A wide discretion has been given as to grant or refusal of process and it must be judicially exercised. A person ought not to be dragged into court merely because a complaint has been filed. If a prima facie case has been made out, the Magistrate ought to issue process and it cannot be refused merely because he thinks that it is unlikely to result in a conviction.

53. However, the words "sufficient ground for proceeding" appearing in Section 204 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. The order is liable to be set aside if no reason is given therein while coming to the conclusion that there is prima facie case against the accused, though the order need not contain detailed reasons. A fortiori, the order would be bad in law if the reason given turns out to be ex facie incorrect."

39. A similar view has been taken by this Court in the case of Ashoke Mal Bafna (supra).

40. In the present case, leaving aside there being no reasons in support of the order of the issuance of process, as a matter of fact, it is clear from the order of the learned Single Judge 6 A482 No. 1896 of 2025 of the High Court, that there was no such order passed at all. The learned Single Judge of the High Court, based on the record, has presumed that there was an order of issuance of process. We find that such an approach is unsustainable in law. The appeal therefore deserves to be allowed.""

6. Per contra, learned AGA submitted that the applicant is a man of criminal antecedents and the informant is a hotelier and he has no reason to falsely implicate the applicant. The applicant is having criminal history of 16 cases since the year 1999, therefore, it cannot be said that he has been framed by police maliciously.

7. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 also submits that cognizable offence is made out against the applicant as per the FIR version as well as evidence collected during investigation and no interference is warranted in impugned order and proceedings of trial court in exercise of powers under Section 528 B.N.S.S., as there is ample evidence against the applicant regarding his involvement in the offence including recorded conversations between the co-accused and the informant. The case law stated by learned counsel for the applicant relates to complaint case in which usually, there is no police investigation and for that reason, a speaking and reasoned order was desirable and mandatory while passing the summoning order.

8. According to the prosecution version, informant Sunil Gupta lodged the FIR on 26.08.2024 through application U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. under Sections 341, 384, 504, 506, 323 I.P.C. against the accused-applicant and co-accused, Vishal Singh with allegation that the applicant is a businessman and on 21.03.2024 at about 05:00pm when he was passing through the road towards phoolmandi within jurisdiction of police station Sigra, Varanasi, accused-applicant Girja Shankar Jaisawal who is a notorious person and known criminal stopped him by hurling abuses, he asked him to pay Rs. 50,000/- per month as extortion money. He also said that earlier he had sent a message through his companion Vishal Singh even then he did not pay the money. Then he said that if he would not pay him the extortion money, he 7 A482 No. 1896 of 2025 would be killed. It is also stated in the FIR that the in the name of Girja Shankar Jaiswal, Vishal Singh earlier also tried to extort money, against which informant had made several complaints.

9. The investigating Officer after concluding investigation found complicity of the accused persons for the said offence and submitted chargesheet against them. Learned Magistrate on filing of chargesheet has passed impugned order dated 16.10.2024 in which it is stated that chargesheet has been filed against accused Girja Shankar Jaiswal, Vishal Kushal Singh and let the accused persons be summoned.

10. Considering the fact that the accused applicant has criminal history of 16 cases, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance on chargesheet filed by the Investigating Officer after collecting sufficient evidence against the applicant. A cognizable offence is made out against the applicant, present case is based on police submitted after conclusion of investigation and report submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the records, I find no good ground to interfere with the impugned order and quash the proceedings of criminal court in exercise of powers under Section 528 B.N.S.S.

11. The instant applicant filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. September 25, 2025 Anjali (Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.) ANJALI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

on bail. She further submits that the allegations in the FIR as well as prosecution version is vague and is motivated with malice. She further submits that vakalatnama on behalf of the applicant was signed with permission of the jail Superintendent as he is in jail custody now. The applicant has criminal history of 16 cases and 2 A482 No. 1896 of 2025 the same are duly explained in para 12 of the application. She next submits that there is no plausible evidence or material on record to connect the applicant in the present case except the confessional statement of the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that there is no evidence against the applicant that the informant has paid any amount pursuant to alleged extortion against the applicant. Proceedings initiation against him at the instance of Police under Section 10 of U.P. Goonda Act, 1970, P.S. Bhelupur, District- Varanasi in the year 2024 which has been quashed by this Court vide order dated

28.08.2025 passed in Application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. No. 26164 of 2025.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the summoning order passed by the trial court against the applicant is non-speaking perusal impugned order/summoning order, it is apparent that learned trial court has not applied its judicial mind while passing the summoning order in mechanical manner, therefore, impugned order is also liable to be quashed and set aside. In order to buttress her submission, learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s JM Laboratories And Others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh And Another, reported in 2025 Supreme (SC) 249 in which the judgment and order passed in Criminal Petition No. 5766 of 2023 by learned Single Judge of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amrawati was challenged, which was filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in complaint case no. 1051 of 2023 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool, came to be dismissed. Hon'ble Apex Court allowed the said Criminal Appeal filed by the accused-appellants against order of the High Court and quashed the summoning order passed by the learned Magistrate and set it aside. Para 8 of the judgment is quoted as under: " 8. In the judgment and order of even date 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", we have 3 A482 No. 1896 of 2025 observed thus: "33. It could be seen from the aforesaid order that except recording the submissions of the complainant, no reasons are recorded issuing the process against the accused persons.

34. In this respect, it will be relevant to refer to the following observations of this Court in the case of Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Another v. Special Judicial Magistrate and Others (1998) 5 SCC 749 (supra): "28. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. The Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused."

35. This Court has clearly held that summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. It has been held that the order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the 4 A482 No. 1896 of 2025 case and the law applicable thereto. This Court held that the Magistrate is required to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence, both oral and documentary in support thereof and as to whether that would be sufficient for proceeding against the accused. It has been held that the Magistrate is not a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning the accused.

36. The said law would be consistently following by this Court in a catena of judgments including in the cases of Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2015) 4 SCC 609, Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda and Others (2015) 12 SCC 420 and Krishna Lal Chawla and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (2021) 5 SCC 435.

37. Recently, a Bench of this Court to which one of us (Gavai, J.) was a Member, in the case of Lalankumar Singh and Others v. State of Maharashtra 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1383 (supra), has observed thus: "38. The order of issuance of process is not an empty formality. The Magistrate is required to apply his mind as to whether sufficient ground for proceeding exists in the case or not. The formation of such an opinion is required to be stated in the order itself. The order is liable to be set aside if no reasons are given therein while coming to the conclusion that there is a prima facie case against the accused. No doubt, that the order need not contain detailed reasons. A reference in this respect could be made to the judgment of this Court in the case of Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation9, which reads thus: "51. On the other hand, Section 204 of the Code deals with the issue of process, if in the opinion of the Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence, sufficient ground 5 A482 No. 1896 of 2025 proceeding. This section relates commencement of a criminal proceeding. If the Magistrate taking cognizance of a case (it may be the Magistrate receiving the complaint or to whom it has been transferred under Section 192), upon a consideration of the materials before him (i.e. the complaint, examination of the complainant and his witnesses, if present, or report of inquiry, if any), thinks that there is a prima facie case for proceeding in respect of an offence, he shall issue process against the accused.

52. A wide discretion has been given as to grant or refusal of process and it must be judicially exercised. A person ought not to be dragged into court merely because a complaint has been filed. If a prima facie case has been made out, the Magistrate ought to issue process and it cannot be refused merely because he thinks that it is unlikely to result in a conviction.

53. However, the words "sufficient ground for proceeding" appearing in Section 204 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. The order is liable to be set aside if no reason is given therein while coming to the conclusion that there is prima facie case against the accused, though the order need not contain detailed reasons. A fortiori, the order would be bad in law if the reason given turns out to be ex facie incorrect."

39. A similar view has been taken by this Court in the case of Ashoke Mal Bafna (supra).

40. In the present case, leaving aside there being no reasons in support of the order of the issuance of process, as a matter of fact, it is clear from the order of the learned Single Judge 6 A482 No. 1896 of 2025 of the High Court, that there was no such order passed at all. The learned Single Judge of the High Court, based on the record, has presumed that there was an order of issuance of process. We find that such an approach is unsustainable in law. The appeal therefore deserves to be allowed.""

6. Per contra, learned AGA submitted that the applicant is a man of criminal antecedents and the informant is a hotelier and he has no reason to falsely implicate the applicant. The applicant is having criminal history of 16 cases since the year 1999, therefore, it cannot be said that he has been framed by police maliciously.

7. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 also submits that cognizable offence is made out against the applicant as per the FIR version as well as evidence collected during investigation and no interference is warranted in impugned order and proceedings of trial court in exercise of powers under Section 528 B.N.S.S., as there is ample evidence against the applicant regarding his involvement in the offence including recorded conversations between the co-accused and the informant. The case law stated by learned counsel for the applicant relates to complaint case in which usually, there is no police investigation and for that reason, a speaking and reasoned order was desirable and mandatory while passing the summoning order.

8. According to the prosecution version, informant Sunil Gupta lodged the FIR on 26.08.2024 through application U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. under Sections 341, 384, 504, 506, 323 I.P.C. against the accused-applicant and co-accused, Vishal Singh with allegation that the applicant is a businessman and on 21.03.2024 at about 05:00pm when he was passing through the road towards phoolmandi within jurisdiction of police station Sigra, Varanasi, accused-applicant Girja Shankar Jaisawal who is a notorious person and known criminal stopped him by hurling abuses, he asked him to pay Rs. 50,000/- per month as extortion money. He also said that earlier he had sent a message through his companion Vishal Singh even then he did not pay the money. Then he said that if he would not pay him the extortion money, he 7 A482 No. 1896 of 2025 would be killed. It is also stated in the FIR that the in the name of Girja Shankar Jaiswal, Vishal Singh earlier also tried to extort money, against which informant had made several complaints.

9. The investigating Officer after concluding investigation found complicity of the accused persons for the said offence and submitted chargesheet against them. Learned Magistrate on filing of chargesheet has passed impugned order dated 16.10.2024 in which it is stated that chargesheet has been filed against accused Girja Shankar Jaiswal, Vishal Kushal Singh and let the accused persons be summoned.

10. Considering the fact that the accused applicant has criminal history of 16 cases, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance on chargesheet filed by the Investigating Officer after collecting sufficient evidence against the applicant. A cognizable offence is made out against the applicant, present case is based on police submitted after conclusion of investigation and report submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the records, I find no good ground to interfere with the impugned order and quash the proceedings of criminal court in exercise of powers under Section 528 B.N.S.S.

11. The instant applicant filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. September 25, 2025 Anjali (Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.) ANJALI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad