CHAMAN SINGH AND 2 OTHERS vs STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER Advocate - G.A. — NA528/3757/2026

Case under Andhra State Act Section 506,43-506. Disposed: -- on 18th February 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 06-Feb-2026

CNR: UPHC010494702026

Filing Number

NA528/

Filing Date

22-Jan-2026

Registration No

NA528/3757/2026

Registration Date

27-Jan-2026

Judge

Sanjiv Kumar

Coram

Sanjiv Kumar

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

APPLICATION ( 401500 )

Sub-Category

U/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of charge sheet ( 27 )

Judicial Branch

Criminal Misc.

Decision Date

18-Feb-2026

Nature of Disposal

--

Last updated 03-Jul-2026

Acts & Sections

Andhra State Act Section 506,43-506

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.CHAMAN SINGH AND 2 OTHERS

    Adv. SANTOSH KUMAR SINGH,VISHAL KUMAR SONKAR,VISHAL KUMAR SONKAR, ,VISHAL KUMAR SONKAR

  2. 2.PAVAN KUMAR

    Adv. VISHAL KUMAR SONKAR

  3. 3.ANIL

    Adv. VISHAL KUMAR SONKAR

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER Advocate - G.A.

  2. 2.SUKHVEER SINGH

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 25-Feb-2026

    —

    Sanjiv Kumar

  3. 18-Feb-2026

    Sanjiv KumarView PDF

    The High Court of Allahabad set aside the cognizance and summoning order dated 17.06.2016 passed by the trial court, finding it was issued mechanically on a printed proforma without judicial application of mind. The court held that cognizance orders must reflect substantive judicial reasoning and cannot be valid when merely filling blanks on standard forms. The trial court was directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  4. 06-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 22-Jan-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. NA528/3757/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court of Allahabad set aside the cognizance and summoning order dated 17.06.2016 passed by the trial court, finding it was issued mechanically on a printed proforma without judicial application of mind. The court held that cognizance orders must reflect substantive judicial reasoning and cannot be valid when merely filling blanks on standard forms. The trial court was directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case