Anil Kumar Baranwal and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 73

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 26805 of 2025

Applicant :- Anil Kumar Baranwal And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Hari Keshav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.

¶5

Learned A.G.A. has filed a copy of compliance affidavit today in Court, which is taken on record. Office is directed to proceed accordingly. Respondent no.2 is represented through his counsel.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, respondent no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent.

¶7

The applicants have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 BNSS for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including summoning order dated 07.03.25 in Complaint Case No.0080/2024 (Seema Sonkar Vs Anil Kumar 29.07.25 Baranwal and others), under Sections 323, 427, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3(1)(Da) SC/ST Act, Police Station- Muhammadabad Gohna, District- Mau, pending in the court of Special Judge (SC/ST Act) Mau.

¶8

It is submitted that previously applicant no. 2 has lodged an FIR, being Case Crime No. 0215/22 dated 30.4.2022, against the respondent no. 2 and her accomplice. Investigating Officer, after due investigation, has submitted a charge sheet dated 24.06.2022 against the named accused under Sections 34, 323, 506, 504, 427 and 452 IPC. In counter blast to the aforesaid police case, respondent no. 2 has filed a false and malicious prosecution on 28.06.2022, after submission of the charge sheet in previous police case. Investigating Officer, after completing the investigation, has submitted the final/closure report dated 7.8.2022. Having been aggrieved, at belated stage, respondent no. 2 has filed a protest petition dated 1.8.2023. The learned court concerned has issued summons only against the present applicants under Sections 323, 427, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(Da) of S.C./S.T. Act. It is submitted that the learned Magistrate has passed the summoning order in a perfunctory manner, merely by referring to the statements of witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and by reiterating the case of respondent no.2. Applicant no.2 is a doctor

¶9

and as per the material available on record, he was on official duty from 08:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. in P.I.C.U. of the hospital on the date of incident i.e. 19.6.2022, which is evident from the certificate issued by the Assistant Medical Superintendent and the attendance register (Annexure no. 7). Having considered the contradictions with respect to the presence of the accused between the statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., the learned court concerned has solely summoned the present applicants and exonerated the other co-accused. Prima facie , this creates a bona fide doubt with respect to the incident in question. It is further submitted that statement of the complainant (respondent no. 2) under Section 200 Cr.P.C. is quite confusing with regard to her presence on the spot. Learned counsel for the applicants emphasizes the statement of Mohd. Sajid recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. to the effect that he has not made it clear as to whether he was present on the spot or not. He has simply stated that on 19.6.2022 at about 12 noon, he went for marketing.

¶10

Prima facie , the matter requires consideration.

¶11

List this matter on 15.10.2025. In the meantime, both the parties shall file their respective affidavits, if any.

¶12

Until further orders of this court, further proceedings in the aforesaid case shall remain stayed against the present applicants.

¶13

Order Date :- 22.8.2025/vkg

¶14

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

Anil Kumar Baranwal and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar Baranwal and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ramsingh Bharti vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ramroop Rajbhar and Another vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mahesh Kumar vs State of U.P.

Gaurav vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Saurabh Singh and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Shailendra Pal vs State of U.P.