Partly allowed

Deepak Gupta and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC25 Sept 2025NA528/37507/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the summoning order passed by the court below in a complaint case concerning offences under the U.P. Transit of Timber Rules. The court held that the Magistrate failed to record satisfaction regarding service of notice and the accused's avoidance of participation before summoning, as mandated by Section 223 of the BNSS. The matter was remitted for a fresh hearing.

What did the court decide?

Summoning order dated 19.06.2025 set aside; matter remitted to the court below to proceed afresh post-issuance of notice under Section 223 BNSS while recording necessary findings.

Deepak Gupta and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 37507 of 2025

¶3

Deepak Gupta And 4 Others

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of U.P. and Another

¶7

.....Opposite Party(s)

¶8

Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Vipin Chikara
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶9

Court No. - 75

¶10

HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.

¶11

Heard Sri Vipin Chikara, learned counsel for the applicants, who are four in number and Sri Vikas Sharma, learned State Law Officer for the State.

¶12

A joint statement has been made by the parties that they do not propose to file any further affidavit and the application be decided at this stage on the basis of the documents available on records.

¶13

With the consent of the parties, the application is being decided at a fresh stage.

¶14

This is an application under Section 528 of BNSS preferred by the applicants for quashing the entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No. 2276 of 2025 titled Forest Officer Vs Shakuntalam Landcraft Private Limited and others , Police Station Ecotech-3, Gautam Budh Nagar as well as summoning order dated 19.06.2025 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-First, District Gautam Budh Nagar, whereby the applicants have been summoned to face the trial for the offences punishable under Sections 4/10 and 11 of The Uttar Pradesh Transit of Timber Rules, 1978, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate- First, District Gautam Budh Nagar.

¶15

The case of the applicant is that a complaint stood lodged on 21.03.2025 by the O.P. No.2 against the applicants along with an inquiry report being Dadri-1 Range H2 Case No.16/2024-25 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar for the offences under Sections

¶16

NA528 No. 37507 of 2025

¶17

¶18

4/10 of the U.P. Transit of Timber and Other Forest Produce Rules, 1978, which was registered on 24.03.2025 being Complaint Case No. 2274 of 2025. Thereafter the applicants came to be summoned on 19.06.2025 by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Gautam Budh Nagar under Rules 4, 10 and 11 of the U.P. Transit of Timber and Other Forest Produce Rules, 1978.

¶19

Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the summoning order cannot be sustained for the simple reason that the complaint stood lodged by the O.P. No.2 on 21.03.2025 and it was registered on 24.03.2025 and though on 24.03.2025 at pre-cognizance stage, the applicant was issued notice to put forward its appearance under the first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 223 of BNSS fixing 18.05.2025 as a date and on 18.05.2025/19.05.2025, date was fixed for 19.06.2025 for issuing notice to the applicants-accused and on 19.06.2025, the applicants came to be summoned. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that in case, notices were issued at a pre-cognizance stage, then a satisfaction ought to have been recorded regarding service or avoiding to participate while putting objections by the applicants but the same was not done in a straight away, as apparent from the order-sheet, the applicant came to be summoned on 19.06.2025. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the summoning order cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be set aside.

¶20

Learned State Law Officer on the other hand submits that from the certified copy of the order-sheet, it is apparent that at a pre-cognizance stage, the applicants were put to notice on 24.03.2025 followed on 18.05.2025 and 19.05.2025, however on 19.06.2025, summoning order had been passed, but there is no recital in the order-sheet regarding service upon the applicant. He submits that the summoning order be set aside, matter be remitted back to the court below to pass a fresh order.

¶21

I have heard the submissions so made across the Bar and perused the records carefully.

¶22

Apparently, a complaint stood lodged dated 21.03.2025 which was registered on 24.03.2025 for the offences under Section 4/10/11 of the the U.P. Transit of Timber and Other Forest Produce Rules, 1978. The order

¶23

NA528 No. 37507 of 2025

¶24

¶25

sheet of the Complaint Case no. 2276 of 2025 reads as under:-

¶26

" िदनांक-24.3.25

¶27

आज यह पिरवादपत्र मय शपथ पत्र पिरवादी द्वारा अिधवक्ता प्रस्तुत हुआ। अवलोकन िकया। पिरवाद दजर् रिजस्टर हो। िवपक्षी को सुनवाई हेतु नोिटस जारी हो। पिरवाद िदनांक 18.5.25को पिरवादी के बयान अंतगर्त धारा 223 भा०ना०सु०स० एवं िवपक्षी की उपिस्थित हेतु पेश हो।

¶28

प्रथम अपर मुख्य न्याियक मिजस्ट्रेट गौतमबुद्धनगर।

¶29

18.05.2025अवकाश

¶30

19.5.25-

¶31

पी०ओ० महोदय अवकाश पर है। िवपक्षी को नोिटस जारी हो। वास्ते बयान धारा 223 बीएनएसएस िद० 19.06.25 को पेश हो।"

¶32

A perusal of the order-sheet reveals that on 24.03.2025, the complaint was registered, notices were issued to the applicants-accused in exercise of the first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 223 of BNSS fixing 18.05.2025 as the date. 18.05.2025 was a holiday and on 19.05.2025, notices were issued fixing 19.06.2025 and thereafter on 19.06.2025, the applicants came to be summoned.

¶33

In the opinion of the Court, once the a notice under first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 223 of BNSS had been issued for taking the stand and for affording opportunity to the applicants-accused, then the court before proceeding to summon the applicants has to record a satisfaction regarding service and also the fact that the applicants accused are avoiding to participate. Since the said exercise is completely lacking and nothing is forthcoming from the order-sheet, thus the procedure so adopted by the court below does not appear to be as per mandate of law. Thus the summoning order cannot be sustained.

¶34

Accordingly the application is being decided as per the following terms: -

¶35

(a) The summoning order dated 19.06.2025 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-First, District Gautam Budh Nagar, whereby the applicants have been summoned to face the trial for the offences punishable under Sections 4/10 and 11 of The Uttar Pradesh Transit of Timber Rules, 1978, is set aside.

¶36

NA528 No. 37507 of 2025

¶37

¶38

(b) Matter stands remitted back to the court below to proceed afresh, post issuance of the notice under the first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 223 of BNSS while recording the finding and thereafter to proceed further in the matter. For facilitation and early disposal, the certified copy of the order be furnished before the court below by 10.10.2025. The court below shall take endeavour to pass orders strictly in accordance with law without granting unnecessary adjournment.

¶39

With the aforesaid observation, the application stands disposed of .

¶40

(Vikas Budhwar,J.)

¶41

September 25, 2025

¶42

piyush

¶43

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

Deepak Gupta and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepak Gupta and 4 Others 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Siddhartha Dinesh Bhai @ Bhojak Siddharth vs State of U.P. and Another

Madan Mohan Tiwari vs State of U.P. and Another

Vinod Kumar and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Vinay Kumar Mishra vs State of U.P. and Another

Dharmendra Kumar Diwaker vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Prem Sagar Sharma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Public Works Deptt. U.P. Shasan Lko. and Ors.