Allowed

Dr. Pushplata Kannojia v. State of U.P. Thru. Law Secy. Civil Sectt. Lucknow and Anr.

Allahabad HC7 Nov 2025A482/3085/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application under Section 482 CrPC sought quashing of complaint proceedings and summoning order against the applicant under Sections 406, 504, 506 IPC. The court found the Magistrate issued summons mechanically without applying mind; proceedings relating to the applicant were quashed.

What the court decided

AI extract

Dr. Pushplata Kannojia Vs State of U.P. Thru. Law Secy… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3085 of 2019

¶3

Dr. Pushplata Kannojia

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Law Secy. Civil Sectt. Lucknow And Anr. .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Arjun Kumar Singh, Anurag.S. Kaalesh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Amar Singh

¶7

Court No. - 16

¶8

HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.

¶9

Heard Sri Arjun Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Rajdeep Singh, learned AGA-I for the State-opposite party no.1 and perused the record. However, counsel for the complainant is not present.

¶10

By means of this application, the applicant has prayed for quashing of the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.3410 of 2018, Uttam Kumar Tripathi Vs. Dr. Anjana Sahu and others, under Sections 406, 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station Talkatora, District Lucknow as well as the summoning order dated 27.02.2019 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that after bare perusal of the complaint as well as the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., the offence is not mad out against the applicant. He further submits that the trial court has not applied its mind in a correct perspective and summons have been issued against the applicant mechanically, whereas the entire material available on record does not indicate that the applicant has committed any offence. Counsel for the applicant further submits that case of the applicant is distinguishable to the case of other co-accused, who have been summoned. He, therefore, submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the

¶12

A482 No. 3085 of 2019

¶13

¶14

case.

¶15

In support of his contention, counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the judgement rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Pepsi Foods Ltd. and another Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and others , (1998) 5 SCC 749 and has submitted that order of summoning of an accused must show that Magistrate applied his mind to the facts of the case and law applicable thereto. The Supreme Court has observed that the Court should not issue summons against any person in a mechanical way and without application of mind as summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter.

¶16

Learned AGA though has opposed the contentions raised by the counsel for the applicant, but could not substantiate the summoning order passed by the trial court.

¶17

I have gone through the record and after a bare perusal of the complaint as well as the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. it is nowhere indicated as to what offence has been committed by the applicant. There is no allegation as to how the applicant was involved in commission of crime and she has been summoned by the trial court in a mechanical way that too without application of mind and her case is distinguishable to the rest of the accused.

¶18

Issuance of summons against an accused has been considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Pepsi Foods Ltd. (supra) and in paragraph-28 of the judgement, it has been held that summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. The Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations. In the present case, it appears that the trial court did not apply its mind and the summoning order has been passed mechanically. Therefore, the entire proceedings, so far it relates to the applicant, deserve to be quashed.

¶19

A482 No. 3085 of 2019

¶20

¶21

Application is accordingly allowed and the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.3410 of 2018, Uttam Kumar Tripathi Vs. Dr. Anjana Sahu and others, under Sections 406, 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station Talkatora, District Lucknow as well as the summoning order dated 27.02.2019 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow, so far it relates to the applicant, are hereby quashed.

¶22

(Brij Raj Singh,J.)

¶23

November 7, 2025

¶24

Rao/-

¶25

Digitally signed by :- CHEBROLU SRINIVASA RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Dr. Pushplata Kannojia v. State of U.P. Thru. Law Secy. Civil Sectt. Lucknow and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Dr. Pushplata Kannojia v. State of U.P. Thru. Law Secy. Civil Sectt. Lucknow and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bharat Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 4 Others

Narendra Kumar and 5 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Narendra Yadav and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Jeetu Alias Jitendra Sharma Alias Jitendra Kumar Sharma and Another Vs State of U.P. Prin. Secy. Thru. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Ankit Kumar and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Vijay Pal and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 4 Others