Allowed¶19

Ankush Mangal v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC30 Oct 2025NA528/42316/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 528 BNSS quashing application; summoning order on printed proforma; filling of blanks by staff; non-application of judicial mind; mechanical cognizance order; Ankit v. State of U.P., 2009 (9) ADJ 778; Public Gambling Act S.3/4; IPC S.120-B criminal conspiracy; Case Crime No.886 of 2019; Case No.27097 of 2020; Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra; Allahabad High Court; Nalin Kumar Srivastava, J.; fresh cognizance order within two months.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 528 BNSS allowed; impugned cognizance/summoning order dated 27.8.2020 quashed; Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra directed to pass a fresh order regarding cognizance and summoning of the applicant in accordance with law, after applying judicial mind, within two months from the date of production of a copy of the order. ¶19

Ankush Mangal vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 42316 of 2025

¶3

Ankush Mangal

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

	Versus
State of U.P. and Another	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: Diwan Saifullah Khan : G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 78

¶7

HON'BLE NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

¶8

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

¶9

This application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed by the applicant for quashing the charge sheet dated 22.07.2020 submitted in case Crime No.886 of 2019, under Section 3/4 Public Gambling Act and Section 120-B I.P.C. as well as summoning order dated 27.8.2020 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra. Further prayer has been made to stay the further proceedings of the Case no. 27097 of 2020.

¶10

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that impugned cognizance/summoning order has been passed on a printed proforma by filling the blanks and it has been passed without application of judicial mind and as such, it is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Ankit Vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in 2009(9) ADJ page 778.

¶11

On the basis of aforesaid judgment, it has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that summoning of accused in criminal case is a serious matter and the order impugned reflects that the Magistrate had not applied its judicial mind, as in the present case the impugned cognizance/summoning order has been passed on printed proforma, which clearly indicates that the same has been passed without applying judicial mind and the learned Magistrate only put its signature at the bottom of order.

¶12

On the other hand, learned AGA has submitted that summoning order has been passed by the learned Magistrate after considering the material which are available on record, but he could not dispute the fact that the order taking cognizance has been passed on the printed proforma.

¶13

NA528 No. 42316 of 2025

¶14

¶15

From bare perusal of impugned cognizance/summoning order, it is apparent that it has been passed on a printed proforma by filling the blanks and it appears that the blanks were filled up by some staff of the concerned Magistrate and the concerned Magistrate has only put its initial at the bottom of summoning order.

¶16

The law on this point is well settled that prior to taking cognizance and issuing summons to the accused-persons, the concerned Magistrate has to apply its judicial mind and that the cognizance/summoning order cannot be passed in a mechanical manner.

¶17

In view of above, since impugned cognizance/summoning order has been passed on a printed proforma by filling the blanks without application of judicial mind and as such, it is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

¶18

Accordingly the application under section 528 BNSS is allowed . The impugned cognizance/summoning order dated 27.8.2020 is hereby quashed.

¶19

The concerned Magistrate is directed to pass a fresh order regarding cognizance as well as summoning of the applicant in the aforesaid case in accordance with law, after applying its judicial mind within a period of two months from the date of production of a copy of this order.

¶20

October 30, 2025 Fhd

¶21

(Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.)

¶22

Digitally signed by :- FAHAD NIYAZ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ankush Mangal v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ankush Mangal 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amit Dixit Alias Monu Dixit vs State of U.P.

Asyant vs State of U.P.

Deepak Alias Gabbar and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Lakhan Sankhwar vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sheru vs State of U.P. and Another

Kusum Pal @ Kushal Pal vs State of U.P. and Another