Partly allowed¶18

Smt Nisha Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC26 Nov 2025NA528/29477/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of cognizance/summoning order dated 23.12.2019 taken on typed proforma without application of judicial mind; non-compliance with Section 190 Cr.P.C.; fresh cognizance left open to Judicial Magistrate, Kaushambi; application u/s 528 BNSS; offences under sections 504, 506, 353, 186 IPC; PS Pipri, District Kaushambi; Allahabad High Court, 2025; partly allowed.

What did the court decide?

Impugned cognizance/summoning order dated 23.12.2019 passed in Case no. 1177 of 2019 (State vs. Smt. Nisha Singh) arising out of Case Crime no. 269 of 2019, PS Pipri, District Kaushambi set aside; Judicial Magistrate, Kaushambi left free to take fresh cognizance against the applicant in pursuance to strict procedure of law. ¶18

Smt Nisha Singh vs State of U.P. — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the cognizance/summoning order dated 23.12.2019, said to have been passed by taking cognizance on a printed proforma not in compliance with Section 190 Cr.P.C., is liable to be quashed together with the entire proceeding of Case no. 1177 of 2019 (State vs. Smt. Nisha Singh).

¶10

Court's answer

The impugned cognizance/summoning order dated 23.12.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kaushambi was passed without application of judicial mind and without complying with the mandatory provisions of Section 190 Cr.P.C.

¶16

Ratio / Principle

The impugned order dated 23.12.2019, being purely on typed proforma, is not admissible in the eye of law, and is accordingly set aside.

¶16

Key takeaways

Setting aside the impugned order will not preclude the learned court of Judicial Magistrate, Kaushambi from taking fresh cognizance against the applicant in pursuance to strict procedure of law.ratio¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT (Saurabh Srivastava, J.), Court No. 77 — Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 29477 of 2025, Smt Nisha Singh v. State of U.P., decided November 26, 2025. The applicant sought quashing of the entire proceeding of Case no. 1177 of 2019 (State vs. Smt. Nisha Singh), arising out of Case Crime no. 269 of 2019 under sections 504, 506, 353, 186 IPC, PS Pipri, District Kaushambi, contending that the cognizance/summoning order dated 23.12.2019 had been taken on a printed proforma not in compliance with Section 190 Cr.P.C. Holding that the impugned order dated 23.12.2019 was passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kaushambi without application of judicial mind and without complying with the mandatory provisions of Section 190 Cr.P.C., and being purely on typed proforma is not admissible in the eye of law, the Court set the order aside, while leaving the Magistrate free to take fresh cognizance against the applicant in pursuance to strict procedure of law. Application partly allowed; notice to the informant was dispensed with as he had already expired and only a legal argument was raised.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 29477 of 2025

¶3

Smt Nisha Singh

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus
State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sanjay Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 77

¶7

HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶9

Present application has been preferred with the prayer to quash entire proceeding of Case no. 1177 of 2019 (State vs. Smt. Nisha Singh) arising out of Case Crime no. 269 of 2019 under sections 504, 506, 353, 186 IPC, PS- Pipri, District Kaushambi.

¶10

At the very outset, learned counsel for applicant contended that in pursuance to FIR registered against the applicant, learned court concerned took cognizance and summoned the applicant vide impugned order dated 23.12.2019 but from perusal of the same order, it transpires that the concerned court took cognizance on printed proforma which is not in compliance of Section 190 Cr.P.C and therefore the same is liable to be quashed.

¶11

Per contra, learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer sought through the instant application but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶12

Since only legal argument has been raised at the behest of applicant, as such process to issue notice to informant is hereby dispensed with. However, it is informed by learned counsel for applicant that informant in the present case has already expired and as such he has not been made party in the instant application.

¶13

After hearing the rival submissions extended by learned counsels for

¶14

NA528 No. 29477 of 2025

¶15

¶16

the parties and perusing the entire record along with cognizance/summoning order dated 23.12.2019, this Court finds that the impugned order dated 23.12.2019 has been passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Kaushambi without application of judicial mind and without complying mandatory provisions of Sections 190 Cr.P.C. Impugned order dated 23.12.2019 is purely on typed proforma which is not admissible in the eye of law and as such impugned order dated 23.12.2019 passed in Case no. 1177 of 2019 (State vs. Smt. Nisha Singh) arising out of Case Crime no. 269 of 2019 under sections 504, 506, 353, 186 IPC, PS- Pipri, District Kaushambi is hereby set aside.

¶17

However, this order will not preclude the learned court of Judicial Magistrate, Kaushambi to take fresh cognizance against applicant, in pursuance to strict procedure of law.

¶18

The instant application stands partly allowed accordingly.

¶19

(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)

¶20

November 26, 2025 Shaswat

¶21

Digitally signed by :- SHASWAT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt Nisha Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Nisha Singh v. State of U.P.

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

Narendra Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Devi Prasad Rai and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Nanhey @ Nanhe vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajesh Kumar and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Saurabh Alias Saurabh Pathak and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Amar Sharma and Another vs State of U.P. and Another