Shiva Shukla and 4 Others vs State of U.P… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2026)

Shiva Shukla and 4 Others vs State of U.P… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Criminal appeal admitted; notice issued to respondent no.2, to be served through the CJM concerned, returnable at an early date; steps within a week; matter listed on 09.03.2026; till the next date of listing, no coercive process shall be adopted against the appellants by the courts below. Final decision on the Section 223(1) BNSS contention deferred.

Issue for consideration

Whether the summoning/cognizance order dated 08.01.2026 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Sitapur is vitiated because cognizance was taken on the complaint without giving the accused the opportunity of being heard required by the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 223 BNSS, including whether a Special Judge exercising Magistrate powers on a complaint is bound by that proviso.

Key takeaways

Ad interim direction: until the next date of listing (09.03.2026), no coercive process shall be adopted against the appellants by the courts below; the contention regarding compliance with the proviso to Section 223(1) BNSS was left open ('The matter requires consideration') with the appeal admitted and notice ordered.¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Appeal (CRL.A.) No. 162 of 2026 under Section 14-A(1), SC/ST Act, 1989 (Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench; Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, J.; decided January 22, 2026) against the summoning order dated 08.01.2026 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Sitapur in Complaint Case 109/2025 (Roopa v. Shiva Shukla and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 6/2025, P.S. Ramkot, District Sitapur, under Sections 191(2), 115(2), 352, 351(2), 331(2) and 76 B.N.S. read with Section 3(1)(द),(घ) SC/ST Act against appellants 1, 2 and 5, corresponding B.N.S. provisions against appellant No. 3, and additionally Section 309(4) B.N.S. against appellant No. 4. Grievance: cognizance taken on a complaint without affording the accused the hearing mandated by the proviso to Section 223(1) BNSS; reliance placed on Prateek Agarwal v. State of U.P. (Appn. U/S 482 No. 10390 of 2024, decided 26.11.2024). Court found 'The matter requires consideration', admitted the appeal, issued notice to respondent no. 2 through the CJM, fixed 09.03.2026, and directed that till the next date of listing no coercive process be adopted against the appellants by the courts below. No final opinion expressed on the Section 223(1) proviso contention.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 162 of 2026

Shiva Shukla And 4 Others

.....Appellant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And Another

.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s) : Lalji Prasad Shukla Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 27

HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, J.

The instant criminal Appeal U/S 14 A (1) of Scheduled casts/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of atrocities) Act 1989 is directed against the order dated 08.01.2026 passed by learned Special Judge SC/ST Act Sitapur in Complaint case 109/2025 (Roopa Versus Shiva Shukla and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 6/2025 under Sections 191(2), 115(2), 352, 351(2), 331(2), 76, B.N.S. and 3(1) (द), (घ) SC/ST Act against appellant 1, 2 & 5& u/s 191(2) 115(2), 352, 351(2), 331(2), 76, B.N.S. against appellant No. 3 and u/s 191(2), 115(2), 352, 351(2), 331(2), 309 (4) B.N.S. against appellant No. 4 Police Station Ramkot, District Sitapur, by which the learned court below summoned the appellants.

Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

At the outset , learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned order is suffering from a legal error as the court below has failed to ensure the compliance of Proviso of sub section (1) of Section 223 of the BNSS which provides that in a complaint case no cognizance of an offence shall be taken by the Magistrate without giving the accused an opportunity of being heard.

He next submitted that as a Special Judge has exercised powers of Magistrate under law while taking cognizance of an offence on complaint and issuing summoning order, therefore, learned Special Judge was under

CRLA No. 162 of 2026

2

legal obligation to ensure compliance of said proviso to Section 223 of BNSS, in fact no opportunity of hearing has been provided to the appellants before taking cognizance of the offence and issuing summoning orders against them.

Learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on a reported judgment of this Court in the case of Prateek Agarwal Vs. State of U.P. and another passed in APPLICATION US 482 No. 10390 of 2024 decided on 26.11.2024 whereby summoning order issued by learned trial court was set side in a case under Sections 302,328 IPC after treating the Protest Petition filed by complainant against final report as complaint and in that case notice was issued to the accused/ applicant before recording statement of complainant and witnesses where in present case no notice at all was issued to the appellants.

The matter requires consideration.

Admit.

Issue notice to respondent no.2 which shall be served through CJM concerned returnable at an early date.

Steps be taken within a week.

List on 09.03.2026.

Till the next date of listing, no coercive process shall be adopted against the appellants by the courts below.

(Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.)

January 22, 2026 dk/

Digitally signed by :- DEVENDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench