Dr. Anjum Ahmad vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:69308

Court No. - 73

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 44743 of 2024

Applicant :- Dr. Anjum Ahmad Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rafat Raza Khan,Sunil Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

¶6

Heard Shri R.R. Khan, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Kripa Shankar, learned AGA for the State.

¶7

This application under Section 482 Cr.PC. has been filed by the applicant to quash the entire proceedings of Case No.35887 of 2023 (State Vs. Anjum Ahmad) under section 256 Cr.P.C. Police Station-Attarsuiya, District-Prayagraj, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad along with impugned summoning order dated 18.10.2023 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that a complaint was lodged by the opposite party no. 2, Assistant Labour Commissioner Control Vigilance U.P. with an allegation that the applicant had committed offences under Sections 48 & 49 of the Building and other Construction Workers' (Regulation of Employment and Condition of Service Act) 1996, pursuant whereto on 18.10.2023 passed by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad had summoned the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that a perusal of the summoning order would reveal that the same is cryptic besides being passed in a mechanical manner without due application of mind even without reciting the case of the complainant showing prima facie

¶9

attraction of the penal provisions. He further submits that no such offences has been committed.

¶10

This Court on 25.04.2025 required the learned AGA to seek instructions. Learned AGA submits that though the instructions have not been received but according to him, the nature of the summoning order itself shows that the same is not in correct perspective, the order impugned be set aside and the matter be remitted back to pass a fresh order.

¶11

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records carefully.

¶12

The only question which arises at this stage is the nature of the summoning order whereby the applicant has been summoned under Sections 48 & 49 of the Building and other Construction Workers' (Regulation of Employment and Condition of Service Act) 1996, a perusal of the summoning order dated 18.10.2023 passed by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad in Case No.35887 of 2023 (State Vs. Anjum Ahmad) under section 256 Cr.P.C. Police Station-Attarsuiya, District-Prayagraj reveals that the same has been passed without even noticing or reciting the case of the complainant, however, it is a matter of routine the summoning order has been passed.

¶13

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. J.M. Laboratories v. State of Andhra Pradesh; 2025 INSC 127 para 9 whereof is quoted hereinunder.-

¶14

"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 nonspeaking 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

¶15

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."

¶16

Respectively following judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. J.M. Laboratories (supra), this Court is of the firm opinion that the summoning order dated 18.10.2023 passed by the court below is liable to be set aside and the matter be remitted back for passing a fresh order.

¶17

Accordingly, the application stands allowed.

¶18

The order dated 18.10.2023 passed by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad summoning the applicant is set aside.

¶19

The matter stands remitted back to pass fresh order strictly in accordance with law.

¶20

For facilitating early disposal, the party shall furnish the certified copy of the order before the court below by 09.05.2025 and the court below shall proceed to decide the said proceeding with most expedition.

¶21

Needless to point out that the Court has not adjudicated upon the merits of the case.

¶22

Order Date :- 1.5.2025 A. Prajapati

¶23

Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dr. Anjum Ahmad v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Anjum Ahmad v. State of U.P. 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

Jiya Ram Verma vs Dr. Om Prakash Gupta, Deputy Director of Education, Ayodhya and Another

Dhubra Tewari and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd Mohsin vs State of U.P. and Another

Bhagwati Petrotech Industries Private Litmited vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Dev Kumar and 5 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Santosh Kumar and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and 3 Others