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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing prayer refused; application disposed of with liberty/direction to the applicant to surrender before the court concerned within two weeks and apply for bail, with the bail application to be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with the law laid down in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another (2022 SCC OnLine SC 825), and no coercive action against the applicant till two weeks from the date of the order.

Issue for consideration

Whether the summoning order dated 18.04.2017 and the entire proceedings arising out of Case Crime No. 220 of 2010 (State Vs. Rajpati) under Sections 419, 420, 409 IPC should be quashed.

Court's answer

On perusal of the narration of the FIR, the impugned order and the chargesheet, the Court found this not to be a case requiring its interference; no ground was available in the application on which the impugned order and the entire criminal proceedings could be set aside.

Ratio / Principle

The prayer sought through the instant application (quashing of the summoning order and the entire proceedings) was refused.

Key takeaways

The application was finally disposed of with a direction that if the applicant surrenders before the court concerned within two weeks and applies for bail, his bail application shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with the law laid down in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another (2022 SCC OnLine SC 825).ratio¶11
It was made clear that till two weeks from the date of the order, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant in pursuance of the aforesaid case.ratio¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Saurabh Srivastava, J.) disposed of an application under Section 528 BNSS seeking quashing of the summoning order dated 18.04.2017 and the entire proceedings arising out of Case Crime No. 220 of 2010 (State Vs. Rajpati) under Sections 419, 420, 409 IPC, P.S. Cantt., District Varanasi, pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Varanasi. Perusing the narration of the FIR, the impugned order and the chargesheet, the Court held that this was not a case requiring interference and that no ground existed to set aside the impugned order and the criminal proceedings; the quashing prayer was accordingly refused. The application was disposed of with a direction that if the applicant surrendered within two weeks and applied for bail, his bail application would be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with the law laid down in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another (2022 SCC OnLine SC 825), to which the AGA had no objection, and it was made clear that no coercive action would be taken against the applicant till two weeks from the date of the order. Decision dated October 9, 2025.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 23676 of 2025

Rajpati .....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Adarsh Kumar, Anil Kumar Rai, Prakesh Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No.- 77

HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned AGA appearing for the State.

This present application has been filed for seeking quashing of summoning order dated 18.04.2017 and entire proceeding of the case arising out of Case Crime No.220 of 2010 (State Vs. Rajpati), under Sections 419, 420, 409 IPC, P.S. Cantt., District Varanasi, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Varanasi.

On perusal of the narration of FIR as well as impugned order and chargesheet, this Court does not find it to be a case where interference of this Court is required. No such ground appears to be available in the present application, on the basis of which, impugned order along with entire criminal proceedings of the present case, can be set aside.

Accordingly, the prayer sought through the instant application, is refused.

Lastly, learned counsel for applicant has submitted that liberty may be granted to applicant to surrender before the court concerned and apply for bail to which learned AGA has no objection.

NA528 No. 23676 of 2025

2

In view of the aforesaid, the instant application is finally disposed of with a direction to the court concerned that in case, the applicant surrenders before the court concerned within a period of two weeks from today and applies for bail, his bail application shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law laid down in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another (2022 SCC OnLine SC 825).

However, it is made clear that till two weeks from today, no coercive action shall be taken against applicant herein in pursuance of aforesaid case.

October 9, 2025 Vivek Kr.

(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)

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