JAN MOHAMMAD AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

            APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 8012 of 2026

Jan Mohammad And Another
                                                               .....Applicant(s)
                                    Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                                   .....Opposite
                                                                         Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)                               :    Mohd Faiz
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)                          :    G.A.

Court No. - 79
                  HON'BLE TEJ PRATAP TIWARI, J.

1. The instant application under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. has been filed to
quash the impugned charge sheet dated 13.11.2021 (State Versus Faizan
and others) and cognizance/summoning order dated 04.04.2022 in Case
Crime No. 242 of 2021, under Sections 498-A. 323, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Meerganj, District-Bareilly, pending in the
Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bareilly.
Factual Matrix
2. The complainant/victim lodged a written Tahreer in this respect that the
marriage of complainant was solemnized on 24.06.2020 according to
Muslim rites and customs with Faizan S/o Gulam Mohammad, resident of
Mohalla Sufi Tola, Kasba and Police Station Meerganj, District Bareilly
with Mehar of Rs. 5786/-. In her marriage, the parents of the complainant
had spent about Rs. 6.00 Lakh but the accused were not satisfied with the
gift and dowry received in the marriage. The in-laws of complainant used to
harass her for bringing less dowry and used to demand a car and Rs. 2.00
Lakh cash as additional dowry. On non-fulfillment of their demand of dowry
her husband used to commit cruelty with her. Her brother-in-law Munazir
Shahnawaz and her sister-in-law's husband Akmal had also bad eye on her
and when she was alone they used to molest her. When, she complained to
her mother-in-law and father-in-law regarding this, they assaulted her and
threatened that if she complained regarding incident to anybody else they
will divorce her and marry their son again. On 23.07.2021, at about 07:00
pm, a girl named Arshi was calling the husband of complainant to Mumbai.
When she objected on it, her husband Faizan, father-in-law Gulam
Mohammad, mother-in-law Afsari, brother-in-law Munazir and Shahnawaz,
sister-in-law Smt. Rabiya w/o Akmal and brother-in-law Akmal beat her by
legs and fists and ousted her from their house. At the time of this incident the
                                                          NA528 No. 8012 of 2026
                                 2

complainant was 8 months pregnant. She also informed her parents
regarding this incident. Then, her brother Junaid and Chand Babu came to
her in-laws house and tried to persuade the accused persons many times but
they were adamant to their demand. They also told that without fulfilling
their demand of dowry complainant will not be allowed to enter in their
house. After that, complainant came to her Maika with her brother. The
husband of the complainant moved to Mumbai from the date of occurrence
and married to a girl named Arshi and is living with her. Initially, F.I.R. of
this case was registered against 07 accused persons under Sections 498-A,
323, 354, 506 I.P.C & 3/4 D.P. Act. During investigation, on the basis of
evidence collected by the Investigating Officer, no offence under Section
354 1.P.C. was found, which has been deleted from this Crime and charge-
sheet has been filed under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 I.P.C. & 3/4 D.P. Act
against 03 accused persons including present accused applicants.
Submission on Behalf of Applicants
3. Learned counsel for the applicants contended that the applicants have
been falsely implicated in the present case and that no offence, as alleged, is
made out against them. It is submitted that the entire prosecution story is
concocted and has been set in motion on the basis of incorrect and
misleading allegations. According to the learned counsel, the applicants are
innocent and have no nexus with the alleged incident.
4. It is further contended that the present criminal proceedings have been
initiated with a mala fide intention and ulterior motive solely to harass and
pressurize the applicants. The institution of the prosecution, it is argued, is
nothing but an abuse of the process of law.
5. Learned counsel also submits that the court below has taken cognizance of
the alleged offences in a mechanical manner on a printed proforma without
proper application of judicial mind. Such an order of cognizance, passed
without due consideration of the material on record, is legally unsustainable
and liable to be set aside. Relying upon the decision of this Court in Ankit
Vs. State of U.P. and another J.I.C. 2010 (1) 432, submission of learned
counsel for the applicants is that the order of cognizance being on a printed
proforma is clearly without application of judicial mind and hence is liable
to be quashed on this ground alone.
Submission on Behalf of State
6. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer made by the applicants and
submitted that at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out
against the applicants. It is contended that the allegations levelled in the FIR
and the material collected during the course of investigation prima facie
disclose the commission of cognizable offence against the applicants.
7. Learned A.G.A further submitted that the charge-sheet has been submitted
                                                         NA528 No. 8012 of 2026
                                3

by the Investigating Officer on the basis of credible evidence collected
during investigation and, therefore, the prosecution cannot be said to be
groundless at this stage.
Observation
8. Heard Sri Mohd Faiz, learned counsel for the applicants and learned
A.G.A for the State.
9. At the first instance, it would be appropriate to reproduce the provisions
of law under which the present criminal misc. application has been preferred
i.e Section 528 BNSS - Saving of inherent powers of High Court:-
       "Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent
       powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to
       give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the
       process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice."
10. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material
available on record, this court finds that there is need for careful scrutiny
involving appreciation of evidence and examination of surrounding
circumstances, which can only be undertaken during trial, which cannot be
adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 528 BNSS.
11. Looking to the aspect of the powers of the Court under Section 528
BNSS, it is settled that at the stage of quashing, the Court is not required to
conduct a mini trial, thus the jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS with
respect to quashing is somewhat limited as the Court has to only consider
whether any sufficient material is available to produce against the applicants
or not, if sufficient material is available, the power under Section 482
Cr.P.C./528 BNSS should not be exercised. Further in the case of Central
Bureau of Investigation v. Aryan Singh and others, (2023) 18 SCC 399
this Court held that at the stage of Section 482 of the Cr. P.C., the High
Court is not required to conduct a mini trial, relevant para is reproduced
below:-
        "6. From the impugned common judgment and order [Aryan Singh v.
        CBI, 2022 SCC OnLine P&H 4158] passed by the High Court, it
        appears that the High Court has dealt with the proceedings before
        it,as if, the High Court was conducting a mini trial and/or the High
        Court was considering the applications against the judgment and
        order passed by the learned trial court on conclusion of trial. As per
        the cardinal principle of law, at the stage of discharge and/or
        quashing of the criminal proceedings, while exercising the powers
        under Section 482 CrPC, the Court is not required to conduct the mini
        trial. The High Court in the common impugned judgment and order
        has observed that the charges against the accused are not proved.
        This is not the stage where the prosecution/investigating agency is/are
        required to prove the charges. The charges are required to be proved
        during the trial on the basis of the evidence led by the
        prosecution/investigating agency."
12. As regards the order of cognizance/summoning dated 04.04.2024, a
certified copy of that order is annexed as Annexure No.3 to the affidavit.
From perusal of the above order, it is evident that it is in a typed proforma
                                                          NA528 No. 8012 of 2026
                                 4

where "crime number, section of the offence, name of the accused and next
date fixed" are filled in printed proforma which leads to the conclusion that
the Magistrate had passed the order in mechanical manner, without
application of judicial mind.
13. Reliance to be placed on the judgment of the case of Niraj @ Banti
Shahi and others versus State of UP and another, 2025 SCC OnLine All
3024, relevant part of which is quoted below:.
     "While the contents of a rubber stamp or printed proforma may be in
       accordance with law, but insertion of the accused's name and
       statutory provisions into such pre-printed formats is unwarranted. I
       must regretfully observe that this practice creates a disturbing
       impression that the Magistrate has not even perused the case file, let
       alone applied judicial mind. Accordingly, all the learned Magistrates
       and Special Judges are hereby directed to stop use of "pre-printed
       rubber stamps" or "pre-typed proformas" for the purpose of taking
       cognizance and issuing summoning orders, with immediate effect."
14. In Roshan Lal v. State of U.P., 2024 SCC OnLine All 4828 it has
       been held:
      "18. The bone of contention as advanced by the learned counsel for the
       Applicant is that the impugned cognizance/summoning order having
       been passed on a printed proforma by merely filling the blanks cannot
       be taken as an order passed with the application of judicial mind and
       as such the same is liable to be quashed. Since the arguments have
       been confined by the learned counsel, to the extent of challenge to the
       validity of the impugned cognizance order dated 25.07.2022 on the
       aforesaid ground, as such, it would be apposite for this Court to
       decide the said issue without adverting on the merits of the case and
       to judge the correctness of the allegations as well as the defence of
       the parties. Therefore, this Court refrains itself to make any
       observation on the First Information Report (F.I.R.) or the charge-
       sheet dated 14.05.2022.
       19. Suffice it to note that, time and again the very practice of passing
       judicial order of taking cognizance by the learned Magistrates, on a
       printed proforma by simply filling the blanks, has been condemned by
       the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as by this Court. It would not be out of
       place to note that although no detailed order is required to be passed
       at the time of taking cognizance, but the use of blank printed proforma
       for passing the judicial order by the Magistrate is also not acceptable
       being indicative of non-application of judicial mind in passing the
       judicial order. While passing any judicial order including the order
       taking cognizance on the charge-sheet, the Court is required to apply
       judicial mind and the order of taking cognizance cannot be passed in
       mechanical manner."
15. In the case of Fakhruddin Ahmad versus State of Uttranchal and
another (2008) 17 SCC 157 it has been held as under:
              "It is neither practicable nor desirable to precisely define as to
              what is meant by "taking cognizance". Nevertheless, it is well
              settled that before a Magistrate can be said to have taken
              cognizance of an offence, it is imperative that he must have
              taken notice of the accusations and applied his mind to the
              allegations made in the complaint or in the police report or the
              information received from a source other than a police report,
              as the case may be, and the material filed therewith. It needs
              title emphasis that it is only when the Magistrate applies his
              mind and is satisfied that the allegations, if proved, would
              constitute an offence and decides to initiate proceedings
                                                           NA528 No. 8012 of 2026
                                 5

              against the alleged offender, that it can be positively stated that
              he has taken cognizance of the offence. Cognizance is in regard
              to the offence and not the offender."
16. In the case of Ankit Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2009 (9) ADJ 778,
while relying upon a number of decisions of the Apex Court it is held as
under:-
       "Although as held by this Court in the case of Megh Nath Guptas &
       Anr V State of U.P. And Anr, 2008 (62) ACC 826, in which reference
       has been made to the cases of Deputy Chief Controller Import and
       Export Vs Roshan Lal Agarwal, 2003 (4) ACC 686 (SC), UP
       PollutionControl Board Vs Mohan Meakins, 2000 (2) JIC 159 (SC):
       AIR 2000 SC 1456 and Kanti Bhadra Vs State of West Bengal, 2000
       (1) JIC 751 (SC): 2000 (40) ACC 441 (SC), the Magistrate is not
       required to pass detailed reasoned order at the time of taking
       cognizance on the charge sheet, but it does not mean that order of
       taking cognizance can be passed by filling up the blanks on printed
       proforma. At the time of passing any judicial order including the
       order taking cognizance on the charge sheet, the Court is required to
       apply judicial mind and even the order of taking cognizance cannot be
       passed in mechanical manner. Therefore, the impugned order is liable
       to be quashed and the matter has to be sent back to the Court below
       for passing fresh order on the charge sheet after applying judicial
       mind."
17. In another case Upasana Singh versus State of UP and another, 2022
SCC OnLine All 474 it is held that:
       "12. In the case of Abdul Rasheed v. State of U.P., 2010 (3) JIC 761
       (All). The relevant observations and findings recorded in the said
       case are quoted below:-
       "6. Whenever any police report or complaint is filed before the
       Magistrate, he has to apply his mind to the facts stated in the report
       or complaint before taking cognizance. If after applying his mind to
       the facts of the case, the Magistrate comes to the conclusion that there
       is sufficient material to proceed with the matter, he may take
       cognizance. In the present case, the summoning order has been
       passed by affixing a ready made seal of the summoning order on a
       plain paper and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had merely
       entered the next date fixed in the ease in the blank portion of the ready
       made order. Apparently the learned Magistrate had not applied his
       mind to the facts of the case before passing the order dated
       20.12.2018, therefore, the impugned order cannot be upheld.
       7. Judicial orders cannot be allowed to be passed in a mechanical
       manner either by filling in blank on a printed proforma or by affixing
       a ready made seal etc. of the order on a plain paper. Such tendency
       must be deprecated and cannot be allowed to perpetuate. This reflects
       not only lack of application of mind to the facts of the case but is also
       against the settled judicial norms. Therefore, this practice must be
       stopped forthwith."
18. In view of the above, this Court finds and observes that the conduct of
the judicial officers concerned in passing orders on printed proforma by
filling up the blanks without application of judicial mind is objectionable
and deserves to be deprecated. The cognizance/summoning of an accused in
a criminal case is a serious matter and the order must reflect that Magistrate
had applied his mind to the facts as well as law applicable thereto, whereas
the impugned cognizance order was passed in mechanical manner without
                                                        NA528 No. 8012 of 2026
                                6

application of judicial mind and without satisfying himself as to which
offence was prima facie being made out against the applicants on the basis
of the allegations made by the complainant. The impugned cognizance order
passed by the learned Magistrate is against the settled judicial norms."
19. Apart from the number of cases, there are also several circulars issued by
this Court which are required to be complied with. Even, the Office of the
District Judge, Prayagraj, vide Admin order no. 444 dated July 9, 2025 has
issued order to All the Presiding Officers of Magisterial Courts and Special
Judges of that Judgeship to the following effect:

     "The Hon'ble Court Vide Letter No. 8159/ Admin G-II/ Dated
     07.07.2025 has communicated the directions issued by Hon'ble
     Court's judgment dated 7.05.2025 passed in Application u/s 402
     No. 16456 of 2024, Niraj @ Banti Shahi and Others Vs. State of
     U.P. and Another with other connected 17 Applications u's 482.,
     whereby it is apprised that during the course of hearing of
     aforesaid cases, the Hon'ble Court has raised its concern that
     despite consistent judgments, trial courts continue to issue
     summoning orders mechanically and arbitrarily, often by
     inserting case details into pre-drafted or rubbertemplates,
     commonly referred to as "printed proforma cognizance order"
     and discussed the provisions of Chapter XIV of the CrPC which
     addresses the statutory conditions required for initiation of
     criminal proceedings and put particular emphasis on the legal
     provisions concerning 'taking cognizance of an offence'. Thus, the
     Hon'ble has directed all the learned Magistrates and Special
     Judges to stop use of "pre-printed stamps" or "pre-typed
     proformas" for the purpose of taking cognizance and issuing
     summoning orders, with immediate effect. In this regard, in order
     to ensure strict compliance of directions of Hon'ble, following
     order is being passed:

     "1. All the Presiding Officers of Magisterial Courts and Special
     Judges of the Judgeship are directed to thoroughly go through
     and ensure compliance with the the aforesaid judgment dated
     7.05.2025, and not to use "Printed Proforma" in passing the
     Judicial Orders while taking cognizance of an offence.
     2. Further, in compliance of Hon'ble Court's direction all the
     Presiding Officers are directed to ensure strict compliance of CL
     No. 28/Admin G-II dated 04.12.2021, failing which stringent
     action shall be taken against the erring Judicial Officers.
     3. The System Officer is directed to provide pdf copy of Hon'ble
                                                                                             NA528 No. 8012 of 2026
                                                                    7

                                         Court's judgment dated 7.05.2025 passed in Application u/s 482
                                         No. 16456 of 2024, Niraj @ Banti Shahi and Others Vs. State of
                                         U.P. and Another with other con-nected 17 Applications u/s 482.,
                                         along with soft copy of Hon'ble Court Letter No. 8159/ Admin G-
                                         II/ Dated 07.07.2025 to all the Judicial Officers, working under
                                         control of undersigned for ensuring strict compliance of Hon'ble
                                         Court's directions in letter & spirit.
                                         4. A hard-copy of Judgement dt. 17.04.2025 passed by Hon'ble
                                         Supreme Court in aforesaid appeals alongwith Hon'ble Court
                                         Letter No. 8157/ Admin G-11/Dated 07.07.2025, be also
                                         circulated among all the Judicial Officers working under control
                                         of undersigned, for information and ensuring strict compliance in
                                         letter & Spirit, without any slippage."

                                    20. In series of decision of this Court and several circulars have been issued
                                    by the High Court from time to time which are required to be strictly
                                    complied with. However, it appears that the said circulars are not being
                                    properly complied with by the learned District Judges, which raises a matter
                                    of serious concern for this Court.
                                    21. In view of the above, the order of cognizance/summoning order dated
                                    04.04.2022 passed by learned Magistrate is, hereby, quashed and application
                                    under Section 528 BNSS is, accordingly, partly allowed.
                                    22. The learned Magistrate is directed to pass fresh cognizance order after
                                    applying the judicial mind.
                                    23. The learned Registrar General of this Court is directed to issue a circular
                                    in accordance with law to all the learned District Judges across the State of
                                    U.P. intimating them to inform all the Judicial Officers not to use "Printed
                                    Proforma" in passing the Judicial Orders in view of the observation made
                                    hereinabove.
                                    24. A copy of this order be sent to the court concerned forthwith for
                                    compliance.
                                    March 18, 2026
                                    MN/-
                                                                                   (Tej Pratap Tiwari,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
MAHENDRA NATH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad