Allowed¶18

Mekala Chandra Shekar and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC25 Nov 2025CRLA/10890/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, Crl. Appeal 10890 of 2025 (decided 25.11.2025, Shekhar Kumar Yadav J.): summoning order of Special Judge (SC/ST) Sonbhadra in Complaint Case 20 of 2025 quashed for taking cognizance without opportunity of hearing to accused in violation of proviso to S.223(1) BNSS-2023; appeal under S.14-A(1) SC/ST Act allowed; remand for fresh order after hearing; offences under Ss.115(2), 352, 351(3) BNS and 3(1)(r) SC/ST Act.

What did the court decide?

Impugned summoning order dated 25.04.2025 of Special Judge (SC/ST) Act Sonbhadra quashed and set aside; matter remanded to the court below to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after providing opportunity of hearing to all the concerned. ¶18

Mekala Chandra Shekar and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether cognizance of the complaint could validly be taken and a summoning order issued when the proviso to Section 223(1) BNSS-2023 requires that no cognizance be taken without giving the accused an opportunity of being heard, which opportunity was allegedly not provided. +1 more

¶9

Court's answer

Upon hearing rival submissions and perusal of the record, this Court found that the learned Special Judge passed the impugned summoning order without giving opportunity of hearing.

¶17

Ratio / Principle

The present criminal appeal stands allowed and the impugned summoning order dated 25.04.2025 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST) Act Sonbhadra is quashed and set aside.

¶18

Key takeaways

The matter is remanded to the court below to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after providing opportunity of hearing to all the concerned.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Shekhar Kumar Yadav, J.), Criminal Appeal No. 10890 of 2025, decided November 25, 2025 — Appeal under Section 14-A(1) SC/ST Act by Mekala Chandra Shekar and 2 others challenging the summoning order dated 25.04.2025 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST) Act, Sonbhadra in Complaint Case No. 20 of 2025 (Ashish Kumar Vs. Santosh Maurya and others) under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3) B.N.S. and 3(1)(r) SC/ST Act. Contention: proviso to Section 223(1) BNSS-2023 forbids taking cognizance on a complaint without giving the accused an opportunity of being heard, and the Special Judge took cognizance and summoned without doing so, applying no judicial mind. Held: the summoning order was in fact passed without giving opportunity of hearing; appeal allowed; summoning order dated 25.04.2025 quashed and set aside; matter remanded to the court below to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after hearing all concerned. Learned A.G.A. opposed the appeal but did not dispute the legal position. No monetary quantum involved.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 10890 of 2025

¶3

Mekala Chandra Shekar And 2 Others

¶4

.....Appellant(s)

¶5

Versus State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Appellant(s) : Shahenshah Alam, Vimalendra Kumar Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Court No. - 86

¶6

HON'BLE SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.G.A for the State as well as perused the record.

¶8

The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(1) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred to setaside the impugned summoning order dated 25.04.2025, passed by Special Judge (SC/ST) Act Sonbhadra in Complaint Case No. 20 of 2025 (Ashish Kumar Vs. Santosh Maurya and others) under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3) B.N.S. and 3(1)(r) SC/ST Act, pending in the court of Special Judge (SC/ST) Act Sonbhadra.

¶9

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the appellants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. The appellants have not committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. It is further contended that as per proviso of Section 223(1) of BNSS-2023, no cognizance of an offence shall be taken by the Magistrate without giving the accused an opportunity of being heard but he has failed to do so. Section 223(1) of BNSS-2023 reads as under:-

¶10

" 223. Examination of complainant. (1) A Magistrate having jurisdiction while taking cognizance of an offence on complaint shall examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present, if any, and the substance of such examination shall be reduced to writing and shall be signed by the complainant and the witnesses, and also by the Magistrate:Provided that no cognizance of an offence shall be taken by the Magistrate without

¶11

CRLA No. 10890 of 2025

¶12

¶13

giving the accused an opportunity of being heard: Provided further that when the complaint is made in writing, the Magistrate need not examine the complainant and the witnesses-(a) if a public servant acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties or a Court has made the complaint; or (b) if the Magistrate makes over the case for inquiry or trial to another Magistrate under section 212:Provided also that if the Magistrate makes over the case to another Magistrate under section 212 after examining the complainant and the witnesses, the latter Magistrate need not re-examine them.

¶14

(2) XXXX"

¶15

Learned counsel for the appellants further contends that the appellants that the learned Special Judge SC/ST Act has not applied his judicial mind and allowed the complaint of opposite party no.2 in cursory manner without providing opportunity of hearing to the appellants. The impugned summoning order is illegal and abuse of process of law and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶16

Learned A.G.A. opposed the appeal but did not dispute the legal position of law.

¶17

Upon hearing the rival submissions and perusal of the record, this Court finds that the learned Special Judge has passed the impugned summoning order without giving opportunity of hearing.

¶18

Accordingly, the present criminal appeal stands allowed . The impugned summoning order dated 25.04.2025, passed by Special Judge (SC/ST) Act Sonbhadra, is hereby quashed and set-aside. The matter is remanded to the court below to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after providing opportunity of hearing to all the concerned.

¶19

(Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.)

¶20

November 25, 2025

¶21

Krishna*

¶22

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

Mekala Chandra Shekar and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mekala Chandra Shekar and 2 Others 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amit Alias Aryan vs State of U.P. and Another

Kamlesh Alias Baba vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Sonam vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Smt Khushboo Gupta and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Anurag Mishra Alias Banti Mishra vs State of U.P. and Another

Absar Ahmad vs State of U.P. and Another