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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned cognizance/summoning order dated 26.11.2016 set aside; the Judicial Magistrate, Mathura remains free to take fresh cognizance in pursuance to the strict procedure of law; instant application stands partly allowed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the cognizance/summoning order dated 26.11.2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Mathura on a printed proforma, without application of judicial mind and in non-compliance of Section 190 Cr.P.C., is liable to be quashed.

Court's answer

The impugned cognizance/summoning order dated 26.11.2016 was passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Mathura without application of judicial mind and without complying with the mandatory provisions of Sections 190 Cr.P.C.; being purely on typed proforma it is not admissible in the eye of law, and is hereby set aside.

Ratio / Principle

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

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava, J.), deciding Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 7633 of 2025 filed by Salim and 2 Others against State of U.P. and Another, partly allowed the applicants' prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Case no. 3081/IX of 2016 (arising out of Case Crime no. 23 of 2016 under Sections 147, 149, 332, 353, 336, 307, 427, 504, 506, 452 IPC, Section 7 Cr. Law Amendment Act and Section 3 Prevention of Public Damages to Public Property Act 1984, Police Station Mahawan, District Mathura), the charge sheet dated 19.06.2016 and the cognizance order dated 26.11.2016 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Mathura. Finding that the cognizance/summoning order dated 26.11.2016 was passed purely on a typed proforma, without application of judicial mind and without complying with the mandatory provisions of Sections 190 Cr.P.C., and was therefore not admissible in the eye of law, the Court set it aside, while expressly holding that this would not preclude the Judicial Magistrate, Mathura from taking fresh cognizance against the applicants in pursuance to the strict procedure of law. Decision dated September 18, 2025.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 7633 of 2025

Salim And 2 Others	.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) :	Punya Sheel Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :	G.A.
Court No.- 77

HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Present application has been preferred with the prayer to quash entire proceeding of Case no. 3081/IX of 2016, arising out of Case Crime no. 23 of 2016 under Sections 147, 149, 332, 353, 336, 307, 427, 504, 506, 452 IPC & Section 7 Cr. Law Amendment Act and Section 3 Prevention of Public Damages to Public Property Act 1984, Police Station Mahawan, District Mathura, as well as charge sheet dated 19.06.2016 and cognizance order dated 26.11.2016 pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Mathura.

At the very outset, learned counsel for applicant contended that in pursuance to FIR registered against the applicant under the aforesaid sections, learned court concerned took cognizance and summoned the applicant vide impugned order dated 26.11.2016 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.

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

After hearing the rival submissions extended by learned counsels for the parties and perusing the entire record along with cognizance/summoning order dated 26.11.2016, this Court finds that the impugned order dated 26.11.2016 has been passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Mathura without application of judicial mind and without complying mandatory provisions of Sections 190 Cr.P.C. Impugned order dated 26.11.2016 is purely on typed proforma which is not admissible in the eye of law and as such impugned order dated 26.11.2016 is hereby set aside.

NA528 No. 7633 of 2025

2

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

The instant application stands partly allowed accordingly.

September 18, 2025 Rakesh

(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)

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