The Allahabad High Court stayed a summoning order in a defamation case, citing complete non-application of mind after the CJM referenced irrelevant documents. The Court demanded an explanation and paused proceedings until the next hearing.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
UTTAR PRADESH: The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) has stayed the operation of a summoning order issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) of Hardoi in a defamation case. The order was halted after the Court found serious procedural irregularities, citing a “complete non-application of mind” in issuing the summons.
Justice Indrajeet Shukla noted that the CJM had referred to a postmortem report while taking cognizance of offences under Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), a provision relating to defamation-related offences. The reference to such unrelated material raised serious questions regarding the judicial officer’s approach.
ALSO READ: Telangana Minister Konda Surekha Cleared as Nagarjuna Withdraws Defamation Case
Case Background
The applicant, Vikarna Pratap Singh, moved the High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), seeking:
- Quashing of the summoning order dated April 3, 2025
- Quashing of the charge sheet dated December 11, 2024
- Quashing of the entire proceedings in Criminal Case No. 24449 of 2025 (State of U.P. vs. Vikarna Pratap Singh)
The proceedings arose from Case Crime No. 0546 of 2024, involving offences under Sections 356, 351(3), and 352 BNS, equivalent to defamation-related sections 499, 500, 501, 502, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Arguments Presented
1. Non-Application of Mind
Counsels Sri Nadeem Murtaza and Parth Anand argued that the summoning order was issued mechanically. They emphasized that the CJM recorded perusal of documents, including a postmortem report, which is irrelevant in a defamation case.
“There was no occasion to peruse a postmortem report while passing an order of summoning under Section 356 BNS,”
counsel argued, asserting that the error clearly demonstrates complete judicial oversight.
2. Procedural Violation Under BNSS
The defense further argued that Section 222 BNSS requires defamation cases under Section 356 BNS to be initiated strictly as complaint cases, placing a legal embargo on police-based cognizance.
High Court’s Observations
The Court found prima facie substance in the applicant’s submissions and strongly criticized the lower court’s handling of the matter.
Justice Shukla remarked:
“Though this is a judicial proceeding, this Court cannot shut eyes when such orders are passed by Judicial Officers without application of mind.”
High Court Direction & Outcome
The Allahabad High Court has stayed the effect and operation of the summoning order dated April 3, 2025, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hardoi, in the defamation case involving Vikarna Pratap Singh.
The Court directed that the proceedings shall remain stayed until the next date of listing and called for an explanation from the concerned Judicial Officer, instructing that the explanation be submitted in a sealed cover. Additionally, the Court issued notice to respondent no. 2 and granted four weeks for filing a counter-affidavit.
The matter is now scheduled for a hearing on January 27, 2026.
ALSO READ: Defamation Case Against Rahul Gandhi Put on Hold: Court Pushes Hearing to December 6
Case Title:
Vikarna Pratap Singh Vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. /Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home And Another
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. 1953 of 2025
READ ORDER
Read More Reports On Defamation Cases
