Allowed

Aadarsh Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC24 Sept 2025NA528/37448/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicants sought quashing of criminal proceedings under the PCPNDT Act and BNS sections arising from an FIR, arguing cognizance was barred absent a complaint by the competent authority. Relying on its earlier judgment in Praveen Kumar, the Court allowed the application and quashed the proceedings against the applicants.

What did the court decide?

Entire proceeding of Criminal Case no. 3732/2025 arising out of Case Crime no. 100/2025, PS-Khekda, District Baghpat quashed in respect of applicants; liberty to competent authority to re-initiate per

Aadarsh Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 37448 of 2025

¶3

Aadarsh Kumar And Another

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

	Versus
State of U.P. and Another			.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Naveen Kumar Agarwal	Yadav,	Sudhir Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 77

¶7

HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned AGA for State.

¶9

2. Present application has been preferred with the following prayers:-

¶10

"...quash the summoning order dated 17.05.2025 along with charge sheet dated 28.03.2025 as well as entire proceeding of Criminal Case no. 3732/2025 (State vs. Sachin Kumar Prajapati) Case Crime no. 100/2025 under sections 61(2), 318(4) BNS and 3(1), 3(2), 3(3), 4, 5(1)(a), 6(a), 6(c) of PCPNDT Act, 1994 and section 34 of National Medical Commission Act, 2019, PS- Khekda, District Baghpat, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat."

¶11

At the very outset, learned counsel for applicants submitted that in identical matter, one Praveen Kumar and 2 others preferred Application u/s 528 BNSS no. 11599 of 2025 (Praveen Kumar and 2 others vs. State of U.P. and another) before this Court challenging the same issue that in pursuance to Section 28 of Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act, 1994 for offences mentioned under the said Act, no court can take cognizance except upon complaint. In Application u/s 528 BNSS no. 11599 of 2025 (Praveen Kumar and 2 others vs. State of U.P. and another) pleadings were entertained by this Court and after due consideration judgment and order dated 15.05.2025 has been passed by this Court whereby entire proceeding has been quashed and set aside. It is submitted that instant application has been preferred at the behest of applicants who is also implicated in identical proceeding and the similar argument has been raised by learned counsel for applicants for challenging the said proceedings.

¶12

NA528 No. 37448 of 2025

¶13

¶14

Although, learned AGA opposed the prayer sought through instant application but did not disputed the fact in respect of judgment dated 15.05.2025.

¶15

After hearing submissions extended by learned counsel for applicant and perusing the records along with judgment dated 15.05.2025, it transpires that once the mandate of provisions contained under Section 28 of Special Act of 1994 shows that in case of offence mentioned under the Act of 1994, it is only the compliant may be preferred by the competent authority but in the present case FIR has been lodged as such applicant's case is squarely covered with judgment dated 15.05.2025 passed in case of Praveen Kumar (supra) .

¶16

In view of foregoing discussion, parity of judgment and order dated 15.05.2025 is applicable in favour of applicants and as such entire proceeding of Criminal Case no. 3732/2025 (State vs. Sachin Kumar Prajapati) arising out of Case Crime no. 100/2025, PS- Khekda, District Baghpat is hereby quashed and set aside in respect of applicants herein.

¶17

However, it is made clear that the competent authority may re-initiate the matter in strict consonance of the procedure as defined under the Act of 1994, if so required.

¶18

The instant application u/s 528 BNSS stands allowed accordingly.

¶19

September 25, 2025 Saif

¶20

(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)

¶21

Digitally signed by :- SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Aadarsh Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aadarsh Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases