Allowed¶41

Anas Ahmad Khan and Another v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC7 Sept 2025A482/32619/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of cognizance order; application of judicial mind while taking cognizance on police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.; Section 482 Cr.P.C. application; Sections 323, 504, 506, 427 IPC; Pradeep S. Wodeyar vs. State of Karnataka (2021) 19 SCC 62; remand for fresh cognizance order within three weeks; Chief Judicial Magistrate Gautam Buddh Nagar; Case Crime No. 223 of 2024; Criminal Case No. 59965 of 2024.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; cognizance order dated 11.07.2024 set aside as illegal and matter remanded to the court concerned for a fresh cognizance order after application of mind, preferably within three weeks from production of certified copy of the order. ¶41

Anas Ahmad Khan and Another Vs State of Up and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶41

Issue for consideration

Whether the cognizance order dated 11.07.2024 was passed without application of judicial mind, in routine manner, and is therefore liable to be set aside/quashed. +1 more

¶20

Court's answer

From the impugned cognizance order dated 11.07.2024 it could not be reflected that, before taking cognizance, the court concerned either perused the record or recorded any finding whether the offences under Sections 323, 504, 506, 427 IPC were made out; the order was passed in routine manner without application of mind.

¶31

Ratio / Principle

While taking cognizance on a police report submitted under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., it is not necessary for the court concerned to record the reason for taking cognizance, but it is settled law that application of mind must be reflected from the cognizance order.

¶32

Key takeaways

The impugned cognizance order dated 11.07.2024 passed by the court concerned is illegal and is accordingly set aside.ratio¶39
Matter is remanded back to the court concerned to pass a fresh cognizance order after applying its mind in accordance with law, as early as possible preferably within three weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order.ratio¶40

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Sameer Jain, J.) allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the cognizance order dated 11.07.2024 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Buddh Nagar, in Criminal Case No. 59965 of 2024 (State Vs. Iqrar and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 223 of 2024, P.S. Phase-I, for offences under Sections 323, 504, 506, 427 IPC. Relying on Pradeep S. Wodeyar vs. State of Karnataka, (2021) 19 SCC 62 (¶108.8), the Court held that although it is not obligatory to record reasons when cognizance is taken on a police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., application of mind must be reflected from the cognizance order; finding that the impugned order showed neither perusal of the record nor any finding on whether the offences were made out, and was passed in routine manner, the Court set it aside as illegal and remanded the matter for a fresh cognizance order after applying judicial mind, preferably within three weeks of production of certified copy of the order.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 32619 of 2024

¶3

Anas Ahmad Khan And Another

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

	Versus
State of U.P. and Another	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: M J Akhtar, Shahzad Alam, Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.
Court No.- 82

¶6

HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.

¶7

Heard Sri V.M. Zaidi, learned Senior counsel assisted by Sri Shahzad Alam, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Vijay Kumar, learned AGA for the State.

¶8

By way of instant application applicants made following prayer:-

¶9

"It is, therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow the present application and setaside/quash the order of cognizance dated 11.07.2024 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Buddh Nagar, and the chargesheet dated 06.07.2024 along with the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 59965 of 2024 (State Vs. Iqrar and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 223 of 2024, for the offences under Section 323, 427, 504, 506 L.P.C., Police Station Phase-I, District Gautam Buddh Nagar, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Gautam Buddh Nagar.

¶10

It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to stay the effect and operation of the impugned order of cognizance dated 11.07.2024 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Buddh Nagar.

¶11

It is also further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to stay the further proceeding of the aforesaid case, during the pendency of the present Criminal Mise. Application before this Hon'ble Court, otherwise the applicants shall suffer an irreparable loss and injury.

¶12

And/or pass such other and further order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice."

¶13

A482 No. 32619 of 2024

¶14

¶15

Brief facts of the case

¶16

FIR of the present case was lodged on 07.05.2024 at 15:27 hours under Sections 323, 504, 506, 427 IPC against Amatullah Khan, M.L.A., his son and some unknown persons and according to FIR, at 09:27 hours when son of co-accused Amatullah Khan, M.L.A. arrived at petrol pump for petrol then he threatened the salesmen and started beating them and due to assault made by him through iron rod card machine has also been damaged and when police arrived at spot then he along with others tried to pressurize the police through his father i.e. co-accused Amatullah Khan, M.L.A. and when co-accused Amatullah Khan arrived at spot then he also started threatening the employees of petrol pump and its owner.

¶17

After registration of FIR, investigation was conducted and after investigation charge sheet has been filed against applicants and on 11.07.2024 cognizance has been taken. Hence, instant application.

¶18

Submission advanced on behalf of applicants

¶19

Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of applicants submitted that however, in the instant application, applicant challenged the entire proceedings pending against the applicants but he confined his argument only upto cognizance order dated 11.07.2024.

¶20

He further submitted that cognizance order dated 11.07.202 is pertinently illegal and from its perusal, it reflects, at the time of taking cognizance, court concerned did not apply its judicial mind and in routine manner cognizance order has been passed. He further submitted that cognizance order dated 11.07.2024 has been annexed as Annexure No.1 to the affidavit filed in support of the instant application and, therefore, cognizance order is liable to be set aside.

¶21

Submission advanced on behalf of State

¶22

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer and submitted that cognizance has been taken by the court concerned on the police report submitted under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., therefore, it was not necessary for the court concerned to note its satisfaction and from the cognizance order dated 11.07.2024, it reflects, court concerned after application of mind took the cognizance, therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned order dated 11.07.2024.

¶23

A482 No. 32619 of 2024

¶24

¶25

Analysis

¶26

I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶27

From the record, it reflects, FIR of the present case was lodged under Sections 323, 504, 506, 427 IPC and after investigation, charge sheet has been filed against the applicants for the offences under Sections 323, 504, 506, 427 IPC.

¶28

Record also suggests that vide impugned order dated 11.07.2024 court concerned took the cognizance and while taking cognizance court concerned passed the following order-

¶29

"11-7-2024:-

¶30

आज यह आरोप-पत्र माननीय सत्र न्यायालय के आदेश िदनांक 10-7-2024 के अनुक्रम में प्रस्तुत हुआ। वादी मुकदमा उपिस्थत है। अिभ० इकरार जेल से उपिस्थत आया। वादी तथा अिभयुक्त को सुना। प्रस्तुत आरोप-पत्र अ0सं0 223/24 में अिभयुक्तगण अनस अहमद, अमानतुल्लाह खान, अबुबकर खान, इकरार अहमद के िवरुद्ध अन्तगर्त धारा, 323, 504, 427 भा०दं०सं० में प्रस्तुत िकया गया है। प्रसंज्ञान िलया जाता है। दजर् रिजस्टर हो। अिभयुक्त इकरार का वारंट धारा 309 सी०आर०पी०सी० का बनाया जाए। शेष अिभयुक्त जारी समन तलब हो। पत्रावली वास्ते नकलें चाजर् िदनांक 18-7-2024 को पेश हो।"

¶31

Therefore, from the impugned order dated 11.07.2024, it reflects, court concerned firstly noted that charge sheet has been filed against the applicants under Sections 323, 504, 506, 427 IPC and thereafter court concerned took the cognizance and from the cognizance order dated 11.07.2024, it could not be reflected that before taking cognizance, court concerned either perused the record or recorded any finding, whether offences under Sections 323, 504, 506, 427 IPC are made out or not, therefore, this Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of applicants that without application of mind in routine manner, court concerned passed the cognizance order dated 11.07.2024.

¶32

Further, however, this Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned AGA that at the time of taking cognizance on the police report submitted under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., it is not necessary for the court concerned to record the reason of taking cognizance but law is settled that from the cognizance order application of mind must be reflected.

¶33

The three judges Bench of the Apex Court in case of Pradeep S.

¶34

A482 No. 32619 of 2024

¶35

¶36

Wodeyar vs. State of Karnataka (2021) 19 SCC 62 in paragraph no. 108.8 observed as-:

¶37

" 108.8. Since cognizance was taken by the Special Judge based on a police report and not a private complainant, it is not obligatory for the Special Judge to issue a fully reasoned order if it otherwise appears that the Special Judge has applied his mind to the material."

¶38

In case at hand, as from the impugned order dated 11.07.2024, although, it reflects, court concerned took the cognizance on police report but it could not be reflected that learned Magistrate has applied his mind to the material.

¶39

Therefore, from the discussion made above, in view of this Court, impugned order (cognizance order) dated 11.07.2024 passed by court concerned is illegal and according, is set aside.

¶40

Matter is remanded back to the court concerned to pass fresh cognizance order after applying its mind in accordance with law as early as possible preferably within three weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶41

15. Instant application stands allowed . September 8, 2025 KK Patel

¶42

(Sameer Jain,J.)

¶43

Digitally signed by :- KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Anas Ahmad Khan and Another v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anas Ahmad Khan and Another v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases