Khodaiza Begum and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2025)

Khodaiza Begum and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Prayer for quashing refused; liberty to the applicants to withdraw the application and file a regular bail application before the court of competent jurisdiction, any such bail application to be decided in the light of Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2022) 10 SCC 51.

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.6637 of 2024 and the cognizance/summoning order dated 20.03.2025 should be quashed.

Ratio / Principle

Upon considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the prayer made by learned counsel for the applicants (for quashing of the complaint proceedings and summoning order) is refused.

Key takeaways

After some arguments, learned counsel for the applicants was permitted to withdraw the application with liberty to file a regular bail application before the court of competent jurisdiction.ratio¶10
Direction: in case a bail application is filed by the applicants' counsel, it shall be decided in the light of the observations made by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2022) 10 SCC 51 (as described in the judgment, regarding Category A accused against whom charge-sheet has been submitted on appearance).ratio¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori, J.), Order dated 20.8.2025 in Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 26000 of 2025: Application under Section 528 BNSS seeking quashing of the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 6637 of 2024 (Rintu @ Mahtab v. Khodiza Begum and others) under Sections 452, 323 IPC, P.S. Madanpur, District Deoria, and of the cognizance/summoning order dated 20.03.2025 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Judicial Magistrate), Court No. 25, Deoria. Held: upon consideration of the facts and circumstances, the prayer was refused; thereafter, on the applicants' counsel seeking withdrawal, the application was disposed of with liberty to file a regular bail application before the competent court. Any such bail application is to be decided in the light of the observations of the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2022) 10 SCC 51, relating to Category A cases (accused against whom charge-sheet has been submitted on appearance), where bail may be decided without the accused being taken in physical custody or by granting interim bail till the bail application is decided.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:142718

Court No. - 74

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 26000 of 2025

Applicant :- Khodaiza Begum And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Brijesh Kumar Srivastava,Harikesh Maurya,Muhd Shadab Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

Heard Sri Brijesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Kamleshwar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

The present application under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.6637 of 2024, (Rintu @ Mahtab Vs. Khodiza Begum and others), under Sections 452, 323 of I.P.C., Police Station- Madanpur, DistrictDeoria, as well as cognizance/ summoning order 20.03.2025, pending in the Court of Additional Civil Judge Judicial Magistrate Court No.25, Deoria.

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the offence is punishable up to 7 years imprisonment.

Upon considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the prayer made by learned counsel for the applicants is, hereby, refused.

After some arguments, learned counsel for the applicants wants to withdraw the application with liberty to file a regular bail application before the court of competent jurisdiction.

In case bail application is filed by the learned counsel for the applicants, the same shall be decided in the light of the observations made in the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another, (2022) 10 SCC 51 , wherein the Supreme Court considering the category(A) as mentioned in the paragraph no. 2, bail applications of such accused against which charge-sheet has been submitted on appearance may be decided without the accused being taken in physical custody or by granting interim bail till the

bail application is decided. It has been observed that at the cost of repetition, we wish to state that, in category A, one would expect a better exercise of discretion on the part of the court in favour of the accused.

The application stands disposed of with the aforesaid liberty.

Order Date :- 20.8.2025 Priya

Digitally signed by :- PRIYA KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad