Disposed

Naseem and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. of Home Affairs Lko and Another

Allahabad HC15 Dec 2025A482/10602/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash a charge sheet and summons order was disposed of. The court refused to quash proceedings but directed applicants to file a discharge application within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing refused; directed applicants to file discharge application within two weeks.

Naseem and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10602 of 2025

Naseem And 2 Others

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thrus. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Of Home Affairs Lko And Another	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) :	Jitendra Bahadur
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :	G.A.

¶7

Court No. - 29

¶8

HON'BLE DIVESH CHANDRA SAMANT, J.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶10

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the impugned charge sheet and summoning order dated 18.11.2023, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (J.D.) / J.M. Mohammadi, Kheri and entire criminal proceeding of Criminal Case No.563 of 2024, (State versus Naseem and others) arising out of FIR dated 06.07.2023 in Crime No.202 of 2023, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Uchauliya, District Lakhimpur Khiri.

¶11

The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.

¶12

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any ground to quash the criminal proceedings, therefore, the prayer for quashing the same is hereby refused.

¶13

However, it is provided that if the applicants appear and moves an appropriate application for discharge through counsel under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. before the Court below within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order then the application of the applicants shall be considered and decided expeditiously preferably within a period of three

¶14

A482 No. 10602 of 2025

¶15

¶16

months in accordance with law.

¶17

If the applicants moves an application as stated above within two weeks, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants till disposal of the said application.

¶18

Accordingly, the present application is disposed of .

¶19

December 15, 2025 I.A. Siddiqui

¶20

(Divesh Chandra Samant,J.)

¶21

Digitally signed by :- IMRAN AHMAD SIDDIQUI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Naseem and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. of Home Affairs Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naseem and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. of Home Affairs Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ajaypal Singh Kateria vs State of Up and Another

Vikash Shukla vs State of U.P.

Meena @ Rekha and 6 Others vs State of Up and Another

Manjoor Ali @ Tipu and 7 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Sabir vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Niyaz Ali vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others