Applicant sought quashing of a criminal complaint under the Child and Adolescent Labour Act and the CJM's summoning order. Court found summons issued after due consideration of record and statements, declined a mini trial at this stage, found no illegality, and rejected the application.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10429 of 2025
Pintu
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Abhay Kumar Ojha Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 16
HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.
A482 No. 10429 of 2025
2
after visiting the shop in question, the complaint has been filed. The trial court has also summoned the applicant after going through the record as well as the statements, therefore, there is no illegality or infirmity in the same.
(Brij Raj Singh,J.)
December 9, 2025
Rao/-
Digitally signed by :- CHEBROLU SRINIVASA RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the complaint proceedings and summoning order under the Child and Adolescent Labour Act could be quashed under Section 482 CrPC.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Pintu
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 2 Others
Brij Raj Singh
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
