The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) has stayed the operation of a summoning order issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Hardoi, in a defamation case, citing a “complete non application of mind” by the lower court. Justice Indrajeet Shukla passed the order after noting that the CJM had recorded perusing a “postmortem report” while taking cognizance of offences under Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
The High Court was hearing an application filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The Court found prima facie merit in the applicant’s contention that the Magistrate had mechanically issued the summoning order by referencing documents irrelevant to a defamation case, such as a postmortem report. Consequently, the Court stayed the proceedings and directed the judicial officer to submit an explanation.
Background
The applicant, Vikarna Pratap Singh, approached the High Court seeking the quashing of the summoning order dated April 3, 2025, the charge sheet submitted by the Investigating Officer dated December 11, 2024, and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 24449 of 2025 (State of U.P. Vs. Vikarna Pratap Singh).
The proceedings pending in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hardoi, arose out of Case Crime No. 0546 of 2024. The case involved offences under Sections 356, 351(3), and 352 of the BNS, which are akin to Sections 499, 500, 501, 502, 506, and 504 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Arguments of the Parties
Sri Nadeem Murtaza, learned counsel for the applicant, challenged the validity of the summoning order on two primary grounds:
- Non-Application of Mind: Counsel drew the attention of the Court to the text of the impugned summoning order, where the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hardoi, had recorded that he had “perused the medical report, postmortem report etc.” Sri Murtaza argued that there was “no occasion to peruse postmortem report while passing an order of summoning under Section 356 BNS.” He contended that this error demonstrated that the “passing of such summoning order is a complete non application of mind.”
- Procedural Embargo: It was further urged that for instituting criminal proceedings under Section 356 of the BNS, the court is required to “strictly adhere the procedure of complaint case as envisaged under Section 222 of BNSS.” The counsel submitted that Section 222 BNSS puts an “embargo with respect to cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 356 BNS on the police report.”
Court’s Analysis
Justice Indrajeet Shukla considered the arguments and observed that “the matter requires consideration.” The Court took serious objection to the manner in which the summoning order was passed, specifically the reference to a postmortem report in a defamation matter.
In a stern observation regarding the judicial officer’s conduct, the Court stated:
“Though this is a judicial proceedings, this Court cannot shut eyes when such orders are passed by Judicial Officers without application of mind.”
Decision
In view of the submissions and the apparent error on the face of the record, the High Court passed the following directions:
- Stay of Proceedings: The effect and operation of the impugned summoning order dated April 3, 2025, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hardoi, shall remain stayed qua the applicant till the next date of listing.
- Explanation Called: The Registrar (Compliance) was directed to apprise the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate of the order. The High Court directed that the Magistrate “may submit his explanation in a sealed cover envelop before the next of listing.”
- Notice: The Court issued notice to respondent no. 2 and granted the respondents four weeks to file a counter affidavit.
The matter has been listed for the next hearing on January 27, 2026.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Vikarna Pratap Singh Vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. /Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home And Another
- Case Number: APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. 1953 of 2025
- Bench: Justice Indrajeet Shukla
