Partly allowed¶24

Atul and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC26 Nov 2025NA528/31778/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of cognizance and summoning orders — order under Section 190 Cr.P.C. must state sections and names of accused summoned — both essential elements missing — Revisional Court non-consideration of ground — Sections 307/325/504/506 IPC — Case Crime No.508 of 2020, P.S. Pikua, Hapur — Criminal Case No.262 of 2021 — Criminal Revision No.62 of 2025 dismissed — prior S.482 application dismissed 13.05.2024 — Application U/S 528 BNSS No.31778 of 2025 — Allahabad High Court — fresh cognizance order permitted.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of cognizance order dated 14.01.2021 and summoning order dated 27.01.2021 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hapur, and order dated 28.05.2025 passed by Sessions Judge, Hapur; liberty reserved to the court concerned to pass a fresh cognizance order if required. ¶24

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the cognizance order dated 14.01.2021 is vitiated because it neither mentions the sections under which cognizance was taken nor the names of the accused summoned, contrary to Section 190 Cr.P.C. +1 more

¶16

Court's answer

An order passed under Section 190 Cr.P.C. must be clear in nature; both essential elements — the sections under which cognizance was taken and the names of the chargesheeted accused summoned — are missing from the order dated 14.01.2021 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hapur.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

The learned Revisional Court, while passing the order dated 28.05.2025, did not deal with the ground raised by the applicants regarding the absence of sections and names of accused in the order dated 14.01.2021.

¶19

Key takeaways

The order dated 14.01.2021 and order dated 27.1.2021 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hapur, and the order dated 28.05.2025 passed by the Sessions Judge, Hapur, are quashed.ratio¶23
The quashing shall not preclude the learned court concerned from passing a fresh order of taking cognizance of offence, if required.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal quashing (S. 528 BNSS) — cognizance order dated 14.01.2021 and summoning order dated 27.01.2021 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hapur in Criminal Case No.262 of 2021 (arising out of Case Crime No.508, P.S. Pikua, District Hapur, under Sections 307, 325, 504, 506 IPC), and revisional order dated 28.05.2025 passed by Sessions Judge 2nd, Hapur in Criminal Revision No.62 of 2025, quashed — cognizance order under Section 190 Cr.P.C. lacked both essential elements: it did not disclose the sections under which cognizance was taken nor the names of the chargesheeted accused summoned — Revisional Court also failed to deal with this ground while dismissing the criminal revision — application partly allowed — liberty reserved to the court concerned to pass a fresh order of cognizance, if required.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 31778 of 2025

Atul And 2 Others

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State of U.P. and Another	.....Opposite
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Akanksha Gaur
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶7

.....Opposite Party(s)

¶8

Court No. - 77

¶9

HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned AGA for the State/opposite party no.1.

¶11

The present application has been preferred for seeking quashing the impugned order dated 28.05.2025 passed by Sessions Judge2nd, Hapur passed in Criminal Revision No.62 of 2025 (Atul and others vs. Praveen Tomar and another), the impugned cognizance order dated 14.01.2021 and impugned summoning order dated 27.01.2021 passed in Criminal Case No.262 of 2021 (State vs. Atul and others) arising out of Case Crime No.508 of 2021, under Sections 307, 325, 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station Pikua, District Hapur now pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hapur and all consequential proceedings thereon.

¶12

Brief facts of the present case are that opposite party no.2 lodged an F.I.R, on dated 10.11.2020 against applicants which was registered as Case Crime No. 508 of 2020 under Section 307 IPC. After registration of the FIR, inquiry was conducted which culminated into submission of chargesheet against applicants under Section 307, 325, 504 and 506 IPC whereupon cognizance of offence was taken vide impugned order dated 14.01.2021 and applicants were summoned vide impugned order dated 27.01.2021. Applicants preferred Application U/s 482 No.8026 of 2021 challenging the said charge sheet before this court wherein initially interim protection was granted by Coordinate Bench of this Court but latter on, vide order dated 13.05.2024, the said application was dismissed. Thereafter, applicants preferred Criminal Revision No.62 of 2025 before learned

¶13

NA528 No. 31778 of 2025

¶14

¶15

Revisional Court challenging cognizance order dated 14.01.2021 which was also dismissed vide impugned order dated 28.05.2025.

¶16

Learned counsel for applicant sought attention of the Court over the impugned order dated 14.01.2021 through which cognizance of offence was taken by learned court concerned and submitted that in the said order, neither the sections under which the cognizance of offence was taken nor the names of any accused who have been summoned while taking cognizance of offence, are mentioned which is not in consonance with the provisions of Section 190 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the applicants further submitted that the said ground was also taken by applicants while preferring Criminal Revision No.62 of 2025 but without considering the same, learned Revisional court rejected the said criminal revision vide impugned order dated 28.5.2025 and as such the same may be quashed.

¶17

Since the arguments as advanced on behalf of learned counsel for applicants, are based on legal issue, no notice is required to be issued to opposite party no.2.

¶18

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer sought through the instant application but did not dispute the fact that it is not clear from the order dated 14.01.2021 that in pursuance of which sections, cognizance of offence was taken and who are the accused who have been summoned by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hapur.

¶19

After having the rival contentions raised by learned counsel for parties, this Court notes that the essence of order passed under Section 190 Cr.P.C. must be clear in nature but by perusal of the impugned order dated 14.01.2021 by which the cognizance of offence was taken, it is not clear that under which sections, cognizance of offence has been taken and names of the chargesheeted accused who have been summoned by learned court concerned. Both the essential elements of order passed under Section 190 Cr.P.C, are missing in the order dated 14.01.2021 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hapur. The Court further notes that while passing the order dated 28.05.2025, learned Revisional court has also not dealt with the ground so raised by applicants through the Criminal revision in respect of absence of

¶20

NA528 No. 31778 of 2025

¶21

¶22

Sections and names of accused in the order dated 14.01.2021.

¶23

In view thereof, orders dated 14.01.2021 alongwith order dated 27.1.2021 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hapur and order dated 28.05.2025 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Hapur are hereby quashed.

¶24

Accordingly, the instant application is partly allowed .

¶25

However, this order shall not preclude the learned court concerned to pass fresh order of taking cognizance of offence, if required.

¶26

November 26, 2025 Rakesh

¶27

(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)

¶28

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

Atul and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Atul 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

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

Smt Nisha Singh vs State of U.P.

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