Disposed

Mohd. Kaleem and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. U.P. Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC17 Dec 2025A482/9894/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicants sought quashing of a summoning order and charge sheet in a pending criminal case but did not press the petition on merits. The Court permitted them to move a discharge application within three weeks, directed its expeditious disposal by a reasoned order, and barred coercive steps for six weeks or till decision, whichever was earlier.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to file discharge application within three weeks; expeditious reasoned disposal directed; no coercive steps for six weeks or till decision.

Mohd. Kaleem and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9894 of 2025

¶3

Mohd. Kaleem And 2 Others

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. U.P. Civil Sectt. Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s)

¶7

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Farhan Alam Osmany Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶8

Court No. - 14

¶9

HON'BLE RAJEEV SINGH, J.

¶10

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

¶11

This application has been filed with the following prayer:-

¶12

"To quash the order dated 14.10.2024 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-VII, Lucknow and charge sheet dated 26.07.2024, contained in annexure no.1 & 2, respectively to this application as well as entire proceeding of Case No.88702/2024 "State Vs. Azam & others" pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Lucknow."

¶13

After arguing the matter up to some length, learned counsel for the applicants submits that he does not want to press this application on merit and he confines his prayer only to the extent that applicants may be permitted to move discharge application through counsel and suitable directions may be issued for expeditious disposal of the same.

¶14

Learned A.G.A. has no objection in grant of aforesaid prayer.

¶15

In view of above, it is provided that applicants may move his discharge application through counsel within three weeks from today and, in case, any such application is filed, the same shall be heard and decided expeditiously after hearing the parties in

¶16

A482 No. 9894 of 2025

¶17

¶18

accordance with law, by means of a reasoned and speaking order.

¶19

For a period of six weeks or till the decision on the discharge application, whichever is earlier, no coercive steps shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case.

¶20

With the above directions, this application is disposed of .

¶21

(Rajeev Singh,J.)

¶22

December 17, 2025

¶23

Arpan

¶24

Digitally signed by :- ARPAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mohd. Kaleem and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. U.P. Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Kaleem and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. U.P. Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ajay Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Home Deptt. and Another

Brijesh Dwivedi Alias Brijesh Kumar Dubey and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

Smt. Maya Devi Vs State of U.P. through Principal Secretary Home and 2 others

Ram Newal Yadav vs Vice Chancellor Acharya Narendra Dev University Agriculture/Technology Ayodhya

Laxmi Kant Gond vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Basic Edu. Lko. and 8 Others

Madhu Yadav vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Education Deptt. Higher Education New Delhi and 2 Others