SMT. RAJANI PALIWAL SHUKLAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

            APPLICATION U/S 529 BNSS No. - 4394 of 2026

Smt. Rajani Paliwal Shukla
                                                             .....Applicant(s)
                                   Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
                                                                .....Opposite
                                                                      Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)                         :    Rajeev Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)                    :    G.A.

Court No. - 78
                  HON'BLE DR. AJAY KUMAR-II, J.

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

2. The present application under Section 529 of BNSS has been filed by the
applicant with a prayer to direct the concerned Court /Special Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar to take cognizance on the chargesheet dated
12.04.2026, under Sections 318(4), 336 (2), 336(3), 340(2), 329(4) BNSS
and summon the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 and same is pending before the
concerned Court within stipulated period as fixed by this Court.

3. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the above prayer on the ground
that present relief sought by the learned counsel for the applicant cannot be
granted at all as it would tantamount to jurisdiction to act in a particular
manner, it will divest it from its discretionary power while taking
cognizance. Therefore, the present petition is liable to be dismissed.

4. At the very outset, a pointed query was made by this Court to the learned
counsel for the applicant that how this application is maintainable, whereby
a direction has been sought for the concerned Court to take cognizance on
the charge sheet dated 12.04.2026 and to summon the opposite party nos. 2
and 3. Learned counsel for the applicant failed to answer this query of this
Court. This Court again explained its query and asked learned counsel for
the applicant that for taking cognizance on a charge sheet, a Court has to go
through the evidence recorded in case diary and after going through the case
diary, when it comes to the conclusion that a case for taking cognizance is
made out, it accordingly, passes an order for taking cognizance. Equally
when after going through the case diary, if (Court concerned) comes to the
conclusion that no case for taking cognizance is made out, then it passes
                                                                                             NA529 No. 4394 of 2026
                                                                    2

                                    appropriate order accordingly. However, giving direction as sought by the
                                    applicant in this application, it would certainly amount to interference in the
                                    jurisdiction of Court concerned and would certainly divest such a Court of
                                    its jurisdiction to take or not to take cognizance in the light of evidence
                                    recorded in the case diary. Such a direction would force Court concerned to
                                    take cognizance even when in its opinion no case for taking cognizance is
                                    made out. Learned counsel for the applicant could not dispute the aforesaid
                                    position of law. Therefore, relief sought by way of present application is
                                    wholly, misconceived and is hereby refused.

                                    5. A perusal of the certified copy of order sheet reveals that no order on
                                    cognizance is passed by Court below till date, inspite of the fact that charge
                                    sheet has been received on 02.05.2026. A casual and lackadaisical approach
                                    cannot be appreciated at the stage of taking cognizance and therefore, it is
                                    expected from Court below that issue of cognizance be decided at the
                                    earliest without unnecessary adjourning the matter. If for some genuine
                                    reason, case is to be adjourned, a speaking order should be passed.

                                    6. It is also provided that in the event there is any legal impediment before
                                    the Court concerned in disposal of the case, then the Court concerned shall
                                    pass an appropriate order disclosing the legal impediment as to why the
                                    proceedings of the above mentioned case cannot be proceeded with.

                                    7. With the aforesaid observations/direction, the present application is
                                    disposed of.

                                    September 11, 2026
                                    Monika
                                                                                         (Dr. Ajay Kumar-II,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
MONIKA KESARWANI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad