Dismissed¶15

Akash Nishad v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC30 Oct 2025NA528/26179/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 528 BNSS quashing application dismissed; charge-sheet No. 835 of 2024 and cognizance/summoning order dated 18.11.2024 upheld; Sections 115(2), 105 B.N.S; Case Crime No. 774 of 2024; P.S. Gulhariya, District Gorakhpur; CJM Gorakhpur; Case No. 53199 of 2024; no illegality in charge-sheet; remedies reserved.

What did the court decide?

There is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned charge-sheet and cognizance/summoning order; the court below rightly proceeded against the applicant. ¶11

Akash Nishad vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 26179 of 2025

¶3

Akash Nishad

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

	Versus
State Of U.P. And Another		...	..Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: Sandeep Kumar Chandra Pandey : G.A.	Yadav,	Subhash

¶6

Court No. - 77

¶7

HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

¶8

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

¶9

This application has been filed by the applicant to quash the entire proceeding as well as Charge Sheet No. 835 of 2024 dated 09.11.2024 alongwith cognizance/summoning order dated 18.11.2024, in Case No.53199 of 2024 (State vs. Akash Nishad), arising out of Case crime no.774 of 2024 under Sections 115(2), 105 B.N.S, Police Station Gulhariya, District Gorakhpur pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gorakhpur. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the proceeding initiated against the applicant is illegal and against the material available on record; the material of investigation does not disclose commission of any alleged offences against the applicant and as such the proceedings initiated against the applicant including the impugned charge-sheet and cognizance/summoning order are liable to be quashed by this court.

¶10

Per contra, learned AGA for the State vehemently opposed the prayer as made in the application and rebutted the stand taken up by learned counsel for applicant by way of submitting that the averments whatsoever has been raised by learned counsel for applicant is subject matter of trial and submitted that after considering the material available on record, charge-sheet has been submitted against the applicant upon which learned court concerned has rightly taken cognizance and summoned the applicant.

¶11

After hearing rival submissions extended by learned counsel for the parties and by bare perusal of record, there appears to be no illegality and impropriety in the impugned charge-sheet and cognizance/summoning order and as such learned court concerned has rightly proceeded against the applicant.

¶12