NASEEM BUX AND 2 OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF U.P.

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
              MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5521 of 2025

Naseem Bux And 2 Others
                                                                     .....Petitioner(s)
                                        Versus

The State Of U.P.
                                                                   .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)                 :   Ashok Trivedi, Rahul Trivedi
Counsel for Respondent(s)                 :   G.A.

Court No. - 89
                        HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.

1. Shri Ashok Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri K.K.
Gupta, learned A.G.A. for the State are present.

2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been
filed with the following main prayer :-

"(i) To Set aside the impugned order dated 19.06.2024 (Annexure No. 1) passed by
the C.J.M., Lalitpur in Case No. 252 of 2000 (State vs. Naseem Bux & others);
impugned Order 19.06.2024 (Annexure No. 2) passed by the C.J.M., Lalitpur in Case
No. 600252 of 2000 (State vs. Naseem Bux & others) & impugned order dated
17.10.2024 (Annexure No. 3) passed by the Additional Session Judge, 1st, Lalitpur in
Case S.T. No. 576/2024 (State of U.P. vs. Naseem Bux & others) and remand back the
matter to the Court of C.J.M., Lalitpur for treating the case as inquiry proceedings and
then pass the appropriate and reasoned order as per the direction given by the Hon'ble
High Court in its order dated 13.08.2004 (Annexure No. 4)".

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were
made accused in Criminal Case No. 252 of 2000 (State vs. Naseem Bux
& others), which was initially pending at District Jhansi. They moved
Transfer Application No.187 of 2000 (Mahmood Bux vs. State of U.P. &
Anr.) wherein an order dated 13.8.2004 passed by this Court to transfer
Criminal Case No.252 of 2000 from District Jhansi to the court of CJM
Lalitpur. It was also directed that said case will be registered as inquiry
proceeding and will be dealt with in accordance with law. In pursuance of
the order dated 13.8.2004 passed by this Court, Criminal Case No.252 of
                                                         A227 No. 5521 of 2025
                               2


2000 was transferred to the court of CJM, Lalitpur. However, the learned
CJM neither took cognizance of the offence nor committed the case to the
courts of Sessions. The case was simply transferred to the courts of
Sessions where charges under Section 228 Cr.P.C. were also framed by
Additional Sessions Judge, Lalitpur in Sessions Trial No.576 of 2024
(State of U.P. v. Mahmood Bux).

4. Learned counsel submitted that various applications were submitted by
the petitioners before the learned CJM as well as learned Additional
Sessions Judge with a prayer to comply with the order dated 13.8.2004
passed by this Court wherein a direction was issued to register the case as
inquiry proceeding. However, none of his applications were decided,
rather trial in the case was initiated by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge ignoring that neither cognizance was taken by the learned CJM nor
any order of committal was passed before transferring the case to the
courts of Sessions. Learned counsel submitted that framing of charges by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge in absence of cognizance order by
a competent court is patently illegal by virtue of Section 193 Cr.P.C.
which expressly bars the Session Courts from taking cognizance except in
cases where it has been vested with such jurisdiction. Learned counsel
submitted that his prayer for registering the case as inquiry case was
wrongly refused by learned CJM vide order dated 19.6.2024 and,
therefore, the order dated 17.10.2024 vide which the charges have been
framed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is illegal. Hence, the
impugned orders are liable to be set aside.

5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the order.

6. The order of this Court dated 13.8.2024 directing the learned CJM
Lalitpur to register the case as an inquiry case was passed considering that
the case at that stage was pending before the learned CJM and was yet not
committed to the courts of Session. It is very much established that all the
proceedings in a criminal case instituted upon a police report are inquiry
proceedings till the stage of committal. Hence, the direction of the High
Court has to be read in this context and it has not to be considered that the
High Court had directed it to register as a complaint case. Hence, the
argument by the petitioners that the case should have been registered as
                                                                                              A227 No. 5521 of 2025
                                                                     3


                                    inquiry case is unsustainable.

                                    7. It is also very much evident that two orders were passed on 19.6.2024
                                    by learned CJM, Lalitpur. The first order was passed by dismissing an
                                    application filed by the petitioners for registering the case as inquiry case,
                                    and the subsequent order was a committal order. Therefore, the contention
                                    that neither cognizance was taken by the learned CJM nor order of
                                    committal was passed by him is bereft of merit.

                                    8. I have perused various applications filed by the petitioners during the
                                    proceeding and in none of the applications, the petitioners has raised the
                                    objection that cognizance was not taken by the concerned Magistrate
                                    upon the charge-sheet against them.

                                    9. Therefore, the order dated 19.6.2024 passed by the learned CJM in
                                    dismissing the application for registering the case as inquiry case and the
                                    subsequent order dated 19.6.2024 of committing the case to the courts of
                                    Session as well as the order dated 17.10.2024 passed by the learned
                                    Additional Sessions Judge in framing charges against the petitioners do
                                    not suffer from any illegality and are hereby upheld.

                                    10. This petition is, accordingly, dimissed.



                                                                                             (Anil Kumar-X,J.)
                                    April 24, 2026
                                    SK




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