Partly allowed

Vijay Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC1 Dec 2025NA528/32662/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicant sought quashing of a chargesheet and cognizance order in a forgery case concerning forged revenue record entries. The High Court found the cognizance order failed to specify the sections or the accused summoned, held it invalid under Section 190 Cr.P.C., set it aside, partly allowed the petition, permitting a fresh cognizance order.

What did the court decide?

Cognizance/summoning order dated 06.02.2016 set aside; liberty to the trial court to pass fresh cognizance order.

Vijay Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 32662 of 2025

¶3

Vijay Kumar Yadav

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

	Versus
State of U.P. and Another	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: Ghan Shyam Yadav, Rahul Singh Yadav : G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 77

¶7

HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned AGA for the State/opposite party nos.1 and 2.

¶9

At the very outset, learned counsel for applicant prayed for and is granted permission to correct the prayer clause.

¶10

Let the necessary correction be carried out during course of the day.

¶11

The present application has been preferred for seeking quashing of chargesheet dated 07.04.2015 as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 06.02.2016 alongwith entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.370 of 2016 (State Vs. Mahabali and others), arising out of Case Crime No.712 of 2013, under Section 420, 468, 471 IPC, P.S. Shohratgarh, District Siddharth Nagar, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar.

¶12

In pursuance of earlier order dated 01.12.2025, learned AGA-I intimated the Superintendent of Police, Siddharth Nagar for seeking detailed instructions in shape of case diary, report of DCRB and CCTNS, progress report, service of notice, parawise comment and other relevant record but it has been apprised by learned AGA-I that no response has been received till today at the end of Superintendent of Police, Siddharth Nagar.

¶13

In the instant matter, informant is the Tehsildar of Shohratgarh Tehsil and applicant/accused is a Lekhpal in the Revenue Department. The allegations which have been put forward through narration of the FIR, are related to maintenance of revenue records wherein some entries were found forged and fictitious but at the time to registering the present FIR i.e. Case Crime

¶14

NA528 No. 32662 of 2025

¶15

¶16

No.712 of 2013, under Section 420, 468, 471 IPC, applicant was not implicated as an accused. After registration of the FIR, inquiry was conducted which culminated into submission of chargesheet against applicant whereupon cognizance of offence was taken vide impugned order dated 06.02.2016 by learned court concerned.

¶17

Learned counsel for applicant sought attention of the Court over the chargesheet preferred at the behest of concerned Investigating Officer wherein applicant has been placed at serial no.4 being accused along with other co-accused who are six in numbers but at the time of taking cognizance of offence by learned court concerned, neither the section under which the cognizance of offence was taken nor the name of any accused who have been summoned while taking cognizance of offence, are available.

¶18

Per contra, learned AGA-I opposed the prayer sought through the instant application but did not dispute the fact that it is not clear from the order dated 06.02.2016 that in pursuance of which section, cognizance of offence was taken and who are the accused who have been summoned by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar.

¶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 06.02.2016 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 chargesheet 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 06.02.2016 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar and as such, order dated 06.02.2016 is hereby set aside.

¶20

Accordingly, the instant application is partly allowed .

¶21

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

¶22

December 16, 2025 Vivek Kr.

¶23

(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)

¶24

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

Vijay Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Gul Madar Khan and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Rameshwar vs State of U.P. and Another

Amil Ali vs State of U.P. and Another

Akash Nishad vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd. Rashid and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajesh Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another