Smt. Batto Devi and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:144820

Court No. - 76

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 22512 of 2025

Applicant :- Smt. Batto Devi And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Akash Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State.

¶7

Commissioner of Police, Agra has filed personal affidavit and Station House Officer, Jagdishpura, Agra has filed compliance affidavit which are taken on record.

¶8

In pursuance to the order dated 13.8.2025 passed by this Court, the Commissioner of Police, Agra has filed his personal affidavit explaining reason for non-compliance and has stated that the official who was found guilty for non-compliance has been suspended and a circular order dated 13.8.2025 has also been issued to all the Police Officers in the Agra Commissionerate for strict compliance of order of this Court.

¶9

This application has been filed by applicants for quashing the Non-Bailable Warrant dated 30.4.2025, Bailable Warrant dated 11.12.2024, summoning order dated 17.4.2018 and cognizance order dated 4.11.2016 passed in Case No.1344 of 2018, State Vs. Mahesh Chand Sharma and others, as well as charge sheet dated 4.11.2016, under Sections 498A read with Section 34 I.P.C. in Case Crime No.333 of 2015, Police Station Jagdishpura, District Agra.

¶10

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the summons were not served on the applicants and it is for the first time on 30.4.2025 that the applicants came to know about summoning order. Paragraph 20 of the affidavit filed in support of this application is quoted hereunder:-

¶11

"20. That, further, the learned Magistrate making sure whether the summons had been served to the applicants, issued Bailable Warrant and Non-Bailable Warrant Warrant against the applicants. As a matter of fact, the applicants were not at all aware of the proceeding running against them in Case

¶12

No.1344 of 2018 (State Vs. Mahesh Chand Sharma and Ors.) arising out of Case Crime No.333/2015 registered at P.S. Jagdishpura, District Agra as they were never served with summons earlier. It was first time on 30.04.2025 when the applicants came to know about the impugned summoning order."

¶13

In paragraph 7 of the affidavit of compliance filed by Station House Officer, Jagdishpura, Agra it has been stated that the summons were served on the applicants on 8.12.2024. Paragraph 7 of the affidavit of compliance is quoted hereunder:-

¶14

"7. That it is further respectfully submitted that the aforesaid summons dated 21.9.2024 were received at Police Station Jagdishpura, Agra on 14.10.2024 through Court Pairokar and the said summons were served upon all three accused applicants on 8.12.2024 through Head Constable Sudhir Kumar and after service, the accused applicant no.1 has put her thumb impression on it, whereas accused applicant nos.2 and 3 have put their signature on it and report in this regard was filed before the learned Court Below on 11.12.2024. For kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court, true copies of the summons, police report regarding service of summons upon the accused applicants as well as receipt register are collectively being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No.01 to this Affidavit. "

¶15

The averment/argument raised by learned counsel for the applicants has been found to be incorrect in the compliance affidavit, this Court declines to entertain the present application.

¶16

Accordingly, the present application is dismissed.

¶17

Order Date :- 21.8.2025 Bhaskar

¶18

Digitally signed by :- BHASKAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Batto Devi and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Batto Devi and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases