Gayadeen Verma and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC2 Sept 2025A482/6542/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash a summoning order allegedly passed by a stranger while the Presiding Officer was on training. The court found a prima facie issue, stayed further proceedings pending instructions and a report from the Senior Registrar.

What did the court decide?

Further proceedings of summoning order and rejection order stayed till next date of listing; interim order extended.

Gayadeen Verma and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6542 of 2025

¶3

Gayadeen Verma And 2 Others

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. And Another

¶7

.....Opposite Party(s)

¶8

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sunil Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶9

Court No. - 14

¶10

HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

¶11

On 20.8.2025, following order was passed:-

¶12

"Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned Additional Government Advocated for the State and perused the record.

¶13

The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to set aside the impugned summoning order dated 16.07.2016 and impugned rejection order dated 16.04.2025 passed in S.T. No. 38 of 2024, by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Room no. 9, Faizabad by means of which he has rejected the application for discharge under Section 308 IPC.

¶14

Contention put-forth by learned counsel for the applicants is that the summoning order has been passed by some unknown person/stranger than the concerned trial court, as is evident from the order impugned itself. He has drawn attention towards page 16 which is summoning order and this fact finds mention that " पी ओ महोदय ट्रेिनग पर है". He submits that when the Presiding Officer was not present and was on training, the impugned summoning order has been passed by some stranger. He added that there is no application of mind by the learned trial court and, therefore, the criminal proceeding against the applicants also vitiates in the eyes of law.

¶15

Learned Counsel appearing for the State prays that he may be granted ten days' time to seek instructions in the matter.

¶16

Prima facie, it is apparent that the summoning order is passed by some stranger, but it's subject to verification of record. If the summoning order is not passed by the Presiding Officer, certainly would have of serious consequences.

¶17

The matter requires consideration.

¶18

List/put up this case on 02.09.2025, in the list of fresh cases.

¶19

In the meantime, the learned State Counsel shall seek detailed instructions in the matter.

¶20

Till the next date of listing, further proceedings of summoning order dated 16.07.2016 and impugned rejection order dated 16.04.2025 passed in S.T. No. 38 of 2024, by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Room no. 9, Faizabad by means of which he has rejected the application for discharge under Section 308 IPC, shall remain stayed.

¶21

Senior Registrar is also directed to seek instructions from the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned, and shall submit a report by the next date."

¶22

A482 No. 6542 of 2025

¶23

¶24

The office reported that the compliance report is still awaited.

¶25

List/put up this matter on 15.9.2025 in the list of fresh cases in terms of the order dated 20.8.2025.

¶26

The office is directed to submit fresh report.

¶27

Interim order is extended till the next date of listing.

¶28

September 2, 2025 Ram Murti

¶29

(Shree Prakash Singh,J.)

¶30

Digitally signed by :- RAM MURTI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Gayadeen Verma and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gayadeen Verma and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Gurdeep Singh Suddan and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Jokhna vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Science and Technology Central New Delhi and 2 Others

Raghupati Singh and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and Another

Dinesh Kumar Yadav vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Urban Development Lko. and 3 Others

Tahirun Nisha @ Tahiun and 4 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Shabana and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. (Home) Govt. of U.P. Lko. and Another