Disposed¶12

Sunita Pandey v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC19 Aug 2025NA528/12268/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 528 BNSS quashing application, Allahabad High Court, Deepak Verma, J., decided 20.8.2025; charge sheet and summoning order under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 406 IPC (Case Crime No.407 of 2023, P.S. Gagaha, Gorakhpur); joint proceedings under Sections 420 and 406 IPC cannot run simultaneously per Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. v. State of U.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2248; discharge application to be filed within two weeks and decided within four weeks; interim protection: no coercive action.

What did the court decide?

Application disposed of with direction that if the applicant moves a discharge application within two weeks, the court concerned will consider and decide it expeditiously within four weeks in accordance with law; till then no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant. Quashing prayer not granted. ¶12

Sunita Pandey Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶12

Issue for consideration

Whether the Charge Sheet No.01 dated 29.02.2024, the cognizance and summoning order dated 15.05.2024 and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.20453 of 2024 (arising out of Case Crime No.407 of 2023, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 406 IPC) are liable to be quashed. +1 more

¶7

Court's answer

The application is disposed of with the direction that if the applicant moves a discharge application within two weeks, the court concerned is expected to consider and decide the same expeditiously within four weeks in accordance with law; the quashing prayer is not granted.

¶12

Ratio / Principle

Since the trial court took cognizance and issued summons against the applicant under Sections 420 and 406 IPC jointly, in view of the Apex Court judgment in Delhi Race Club (supra), both proceedings cannot run simultaneously.

¶11

Key takeaways

Till then (i.e., pending decision of the discharge application), no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant in the aforesaid case.ratio¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Deepak Verma, J.), Application u/s 528 BNSS No. 12268 of 2025, decided 20.8.2025 — Quashing sought of Charge Sheet No.01 dated 29.02.2024, cognizance and summoning order dated 15.05.2024 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.4, Gorakhpur, and entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.20453 of 2024 (State vs. Sunita Pandey), arising out of Case Crime No.407 of 2023, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 406 IPC, P.S. Gagaha, District Gorakhpur. Held, following Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. v. State of U.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2248, that since the trial court took cognizance and issued summons under Sections 420 and 406 IPC jointly, both proceedings cannot run simultaneously. Application disposed of with direction that if the applicant moves a discharge application within two weeks, the court concerned will decide it expeditiously within four weeks in accordance with law; till then, no coercive action against the applicant.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:142082

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 12268 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Sunita Pandey Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vinay Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant; learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The present application u/s 528 BNSS has been filed with prayer to quash the Charge Sheet No.01 dated 29.02.2024; cognizance and summoning order dated 15.05.2024 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.4, Gorakhpur, as well as entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.20453 of 2024 (State vs. Sunita Pandey), arising out of Case Crime No.407 of 2023, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 406 IPC, P.S. Gagaha, District Gorakhpur, pending in the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.4, Gorakhpur.

¶8

Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The allegation alleged in the FIR is false, baseless and not supported by any evidence. The I.O. without collecting material evidence, in very hasty manner, submitted charge sheet under the aforesaid sections and the learned Magistrate without applying judicial mind took cognizance and issued summons against the applicant. It is next submitted that proceedings under Sections 420 and 406 I.P.C. cannot run jointly in view of the judgment of Apex Court in Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2248.

¶9

Per contra, learned AGA vehemently opposed the submission raised by the counsel for the applicant and submitted that the submissions raised by the counsel for the applicant are disputed question of facts which cannot be consdiered, at this stage. On perusal of FIR and other material evidence collected by the I.O. prima facie, offence is made out against the applicant.

¶10

Considering the argument raised by applicant's counsel and perused the record. Since the trial court took cognizance and issued summon against the applicant under sections 420 & 406 I.P.C. jointly, in view of the Hon.Apex Court in the case of

¶11

Delhi Race Club (supra) both proceedings cannot run simultaneously.

¶12

In view of the aforesaid judgement of Apex Court in Delhi Race Club (supra), the application is disposed of with direction that if the applicant moves discharge application within a period of two weeks from today, it is expected that the court concerned will consider and decide the same expeditiously within a period of four weeks, in accordance with law.

¶13

Till then, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant in the aforesaid case.

¶14

Order Date :- 20.8.2025 SKD

¶15

Digitally signed by :- SURJIT KUMAR DEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sunita Pandey v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunita Pandey v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases