HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3057 of 2026 Court No. - 15
HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.
1. The present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short "CrPC") has been filed seeking the following main reliefs:
"i) to quash/set-aside the entire proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No. 1921/2019 (Union of India Vs. Paramjeet Singh) under Section 276CC of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the cognizance/summoning order, dated 02.07.2019, pending before the Learned Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate (Custom), Lucknow, as contained in Annexure Nos.1 and 2 to this application;
ii) to quash/set-aside the impugned sanction order, dated 15.03.2019, passed under Section 279(1) of the Income Tax Act for launching the prosecution under Section 276CC read with Section 278C, as contained in Annexure No.3 to the application;
iii) Stay further proceedings in the aforementioned case during the pendency of the present application before this Hon'ble Court."
2. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that he does not wish to press the present application insofar as it relates to relief no.(ii) seeking prosecution under Section 276CC read with Section 278C of Income Tax Versus
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Shachindra Pratap Singh, Neeraj Kumar Rai, Raj Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : A.S.G.I., Kushagra Dikshit, Neerav Chitravanshi, Paavan Awasthi
Paramjeet Singh
.....Applicant(s)
U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Finance New Delhi
And Another .....Opposite
Party(s)
1
Act, 1961 (in short "IT Act").
3. Accordingly, the application is rejected insofar as relief no.(ii) is concerned.
4. Before proceedings further, it would be apt to extract the order dated 17.04.2026 passed by this Court.
"Memo of Appearance filed today by Sri Paavan Awasthi on behalf of opposite party no.1 is taken on record.
At the outset, learned counsel for the applicant submits that he does not want to press his Prayer no.(ii). While pressing Prayer no.(i), it has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the summoning order appears to be non speaking. He has placed reliance upon Para 20 of the judgment in the case of Dr. Shail Kumar Jain vs. State of U.P. and another, 2023 SCC OnLine All 3195. It has been submitted that even if the applicant has appeared before the court below, the legality can be seen by this Court and once it is found that the summoning order is non speaking, then the Court can interfere in the matter. Sri Neerav Chitravanshi and Sri Kushagra Dixit, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2 submit that they want to seek instructions in the matter.
On their request, list this case on 30.4.2026 as fresh, showing the names of Sri Paavan Awasthi, Sri Neerav Chitravanshi and Sri Kushagra Dixit as appearing for the opposite parties."
5. The main thrust of argument of applicant's counsel is that summons has been issued by the Magistrate without application of mind. The Magistrate has not discussed anything and the summoning order has been issued mechanically. He has placed reliance on paragraphs 6 and 19 of the judgment of this Court at Allahabad passed in Dr. Shail Kumar Jain vs. State of U.P. and another, 2023 SCC OnLine All 3195. He has further submitted that though the applicant has appeared before the Magistrate but the summoning order is palpably illegal and the same can be challenged for the reason that evidence has not yet been adduced and the A482 No. 3057 of 2026
2
charges have not yet been framed.
6. On the other hand, Sri Neerav Chitravanshi, learned counsel for the opposite party, has submitted that he has received instructions in the matter. He has further submitted that the applicant appeared before the Magistrate pursuant to the summons, and once he has appeared, he cannot subsequently turn around and challenge the summoning order.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Paavan Awasthi, Sri Neerav Chitravanshi, and Sri Kushagra Dixit, learned counsel for all the opposite parties.
8. It is to be noted here that the applicant though had appeared before the Magistrate but still the charges have not yet been framed and the evidences are yet to be adduced. In the opinion of the Court, the summoning order is non-speaking and without considering the documents on record, the same has been passed. The Magistrate has to apply his mind and after discussing the documents on record, he should pass the order, which is lacking in the present case.
9. In view of the aforesaid, the application is partly allowed. The cognizance/summoning order dated 02.07.2019 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate (Custom), Lucknow is hereby set-aside. The matter is remanded back to the Magistrate to take decision afresh and pass reasoned and speaking order, within a period of two months from today.
10. Office to communicate this order to the Magistrate forthwith.
April 30, 2026
Mohit Singh/- A482 No. 3057 of 2026
3
(Brij Raj Singh,J.)
3