RAKESH KUMAR CHATURVEDI Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Shantanu Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Anurag Verma, learned A.G.A. for the State.

(2.) The instant application under Sec. 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (here-in-after referred as BNSS) has been moved with a prayer to quash/set aside the impugned order dtd. 10/2/2025 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Lucknow in Misc. Case No.807/2025 alongwith notice i.e. Annexure No.1.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the notice, which has been issued to the applicant by means of the impugned order dtd. 10/2/2025, is against the statutory provision made under Sec. 223 of the BNSS because before taking cognizance, the notices can be issued for affording the opportunity of hearing, but only after recording all the statements of the complainant and the witnesses, if required. He relies on a co-ordinate Bench decision dtd. 26/11/2024 passed in Application under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. No.10390 of 2024; Prateek Agarwal Vs. State of U.P. and Another, decision of the High Court of Karnataka passed in the case of Basanagouda R. Patil Vs. Shivananda S. Patil; 2024 SCC Online Kar 96 and judgment rendered by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in the case of Suby Antony S/o Late P.D. Antony Vs. Judicial First-Class Magistrate passed in Crl. MC 508 of 2025 on 22/1/2025. Thus, the submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the impugned notice is not sustainable under law and liable to be quashed.