Shashikant Vishwakarma vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2025)

Shashikant Vishwakarma vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No quashing relief granted; application disposed of at this stage with directions: Trial Court to comply with the law in Delhi Race Club (supra) while framing charge, complete framing of charge expeditiously preferably within thirty days, and refrain from executing any warrant till framing of charge; liberty reserved to challenge the framing-of-charge order.

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 14.07.2025 passed by the Civil Judge (J.D.)/J.M, Court No.1, FTC, Deoria rejecting the discharge application, and the entire proceedings of Case No.4016 of 2018, should be quashed under Section 528 BNSS. +2 more

Court's answer

The application was not quashed; with the aforesaid observations it was disposed of at this stage.

Ratio / Principle

This Court directed that the Trial Court, while framing the charge, shall comply with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Delhi Race Club (supra).

Key takeaways

The Trial Court is directed to complete the exercise of framing of charge expeditiously, preferably within thirty days from the date of the order.ratio¶17
It shall be open for the applicant to challenge the order of framing of charge before the appropriate forum, if so advised.obiter¶19
Until the framing of charge, the Trial Court concerned shall not execute any warrant, if issued.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Praveen Kumar Giri, J.), Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 35293 of 2025, Shashikant Vishwakarma vs. State of U.P. and Another, decided December 16, 2025: Applicant sought quashing, under Section 528 of BNSS, of the order dated 14.07.2025 of the Civil Judge (J.D.)/J.M, Court No.1, FTC, Deoria rejecting his discharge application, together with the entire proceedings of Case No.4016 of 2018 arising out of Case Crime No.75 of 2018 under Sections 406, 420, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Barhaj, District Deoria. His earlier Application u/s 482 No. 4409 of 2020 had been disposed of by this Court on 16.12.2020 with liberty to file a discharge application and a bar on coercive action for five months. Relying on counsel's contention, grounded in Delhi Race Club (1940) Limited vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2024 (1) SCC 690, that proceedings under Sections 420 and 406 IPC cannot run concurrently, the Court did not quash but directed the Trial Court to comply with the law laid down in Delhi Race Club (supra) while framing charge, to complete framing of charge expeditiously preferably within thirty days, and not to execute any warrant till framing of charge; the applicant was left free to challenge the framing-of-charge order. Application disposed of at this stage.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 35293 of 2025

Shashikant Vishwakarma

	Versus .....Applicant(s)
State of U.P. and Another	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: Aushim Luthra, Praveen Kumar Pandey : G.A.

Court No. - 82

HON'BLE PRAVEEN KUMAR GIRI, J.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present application has been filed with the relief which has been mentioned in the prayer clause of this application. The prayer clause is being delineated below:-

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble court may graciously be pleased to allow this application under Section 528 of BNSS and quash the impugned order dated 14.07.2025 passed by the Civil Judge (J.D.)/J.M, Court No.1, FTC, Deoria and the entire proceedings of Case No.4016 of 2018 (State VS. Shashikant Vishwakarma) arising out of Case Crime No.75 of 2018, under Sections 406, 420, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Barhaj, District Deoria."

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that for the same cause of action, the applicant had already moved an application i.e. Application u/s 482 No. 4409 of 2020. In that case, this Court vide order dated 16.12.2020 while disposing of the Application had made the following observation:-

"However, it is provided that in case applicant moves an appropriate application for discharge through counsel along with a certified copy of this order before the concerned Court below within a period of one month from today, the same shall be considered and decided by the Court below as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law, without being prejudiced by the order passed by this Court, preferably within four months from the date of moving the said application.

NA528 No. 35293 of 2025

2

For a period of five months from today or till the disposal of discharge application, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant in aforesaid case. "

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant had filed a discharge application before the Trial Court, which too was rejected by the impugned order dated 14.07.2025 .

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Delhi Race Club (1940) Limited and Others vs. State of U.P. and Others , reported in 2024 (1) SCC 690 , proceedings under Sections 420 and 406 IPC cannot run concurrently. It is contended that the impugned order is bad in the eye of law and liable to be quashed.

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, this Court directs that the Trial Court, while framing the charge, shall comply with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Delhi Race Club (supra) .

The Trial Court is further directed to complete the exercise of framing of charge expeditiously, preferably within a period of thirty days from today.

With the aforesaid observation, the present application is disposed of at this stage.

It shall be open for the applicant to challenge the order of framing of charge before the appropriate forum, if so advised.

Till the framing of charge, the Trial Court concerned shall not execute any warrant, if it is issued.

(Praveen Kumar Giri,J.)

December 16, 2025 DKS

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