Applicant sought quashing of a summoning order and NBW in a cheating/forgery case arising from an allegedly forged compromise deed in matrimonial litigation with his wife. The High Court found prima facie grounds to proceed and dismissed the application, holding no case for quashing.
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.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:98216
Court No. - 48
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 14755 of 2025
Applicant :- Vishnu Shankar Gupta Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Zafar Abbas Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sushil Shukla
Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.
also set aside in Revision No. 362 of 2023 and the matter was again remanded back to the trial Court. After remand the case is pending consideration and the applicant and other co-accused persons have been enlarged on bail.
Crime No. 268 of 2019, under Sections 420, 406, 504, 506 of I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District Kanpur Nagar pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-III, Kanpur Nagar.
"11. The Court also enunciated a set of principles which the High Courts must keep in mind while exercising their jurisdiction under the provision:
"27. .. At best and upon objective analysis of various judgments of this Court, we are able to cull out some of the principles to be considered for proper exercise of jurisdiction, particularly, with regard to quashing of charge either in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 or Section 482 of the Code or together, as the case may be:
27.2. The Court should apply the test as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made from the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith prima facie establish the offence or not. If the allegations are so patently absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person can ever reach such a conclusion and where the basic ingredients of a criminal offence are not satisfied then the Court may interfere.
27.3. The High Court should not unduly interfere. No meticulous examination of the evidence is needed for considering whether the case would end in conviction or not at the stage of framing of charge or quashing of charge.
27.4. Where the exercise of such power is absolutely essential to prevent patent miscarriage of justice and for correcting some grave error that might be committed by the subordinate courts even in such cases, the High Court should be loath to interfere, at the threshold, to throttle the prosecution in exercise of its inherent powers.
27.9. Another very significant caution that the courts have to observe is that it cannot examine the facts, evidence and materials on record to determine whether there is sufficient material on the basis of which the case would end in a conviction; the court is concerned primarily with the allegations taken as a whole whether they will constitute an offence and, if so, is it an abuse of the process of court leading to injustice.
27.13. Quashing of a charge is an exception to the rule of continuous prosecution. Where the offence is even broadly satisfied, the Court should be more inclined to permit continuation of prosecution rather than its quashing at that initial stage. The Court is not expected to marshal the records with a view to decide admissibility and reliability of the documents or records but is an opinion formed prima facie." (Emphasis supplied)
12 . In State of Rajasthan v Fatehkaran Mehdu 6, a two-judge bench of this Court has elucidated on the scope of the interference permissible under Section 397 with re- gard to the framing of a charge. Justice Ashok Bhushan held thus:
"26. The scope of interference and exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 CrPC has been time and again explained by this Court. Further, the scope of interference under Section 397 CrPC at a stage, when charge had been framed, is also well settled. At the stage of framing of a charge, the court is concerned not with the proof of the allegation rather it has to focus on the material and form an opinion whether there is strong suspicion that the accused has committed an offence, which if put to trial, could prove his guilt. The framing of charge is not a stage, at which stage final test of guilt is to be applied. Thus, to hold that at the stage of framing the charge, the court should form an opinion that the accused is certainly guilty of committing an offence, is to hold 6 (2017) 3 SCC 198 something which is neither permissible nor is in consonance with the scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure." (Emphasis supplied)
Order Date :- 10.6.2025
Digitally signed by :- pks PAWAN KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the summoning order and non-bailable warrant in Case Crime No. 246 of 2019 and the entire criminal proceedings should be quashed under Section 528 BNSS.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. DeepakRelied on¶12
2019 (13) SCC 62 · Who else cites this
State of Rajasthan v Fatehkaran MehduReferred¶12
(2017) 3 SCC 198 · Who else cites this
Saranya Vs. Bharate and AnotherRelied on¶13
LL 2021 SC 402
State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Kunwar SinghRelied on¶14
Crl. Appeal No.709 of 2021 / SLP (Crl) No. 5517 of 2021
Kaptan Singh Vs. State of Uttar PradeshRelied on¶15
LL 2021 SC 379
State of Odhisha Vs. Pratima MohantyRelied on¶15
LL 2021 SC 730
8 provisions across 5 enactments
Vishnu Shankar Gupta
State of U.P.
Namita Gupta
Ashutosh Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
