Shrikant Raj Alias Ram Lakhan Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Shrikant Raj Alias Ram Lakhan Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Prayer to quash the summoning order and proceedings refused; however, a bail application moved within 30 days is to be considered and disposed of expeditiously in light of Satender Kumar Antil (2021) 10 SCC 773, and no coercive action is to be taken against the applicant for 30 days or until such bail application, whichever is earlier.

Issue for consideration

Whether the summoning order dated 29.01.2013 and the entire proceedings in Complaint Case No. 1401 of 2010 under Section 419 IPC should be quashed under Section 528 BNSS. +1 more

Court's answer

No interference by this Court is required in the summoning order and proceedings challenged.

Ratio / Principle

On the material on record, it cannot be said at this stage that no offence is made out prima facie against the applicant; the submissions advanced relate to disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 528 BNSS.

Key takeaways

The power under Section 528 BNSS may be exercised only where there is failure of justice or misuse of judicial mechanism or procedure, or the sentence or order was not correct, so as to prevent abuse of process and miscarriage of justice.ratio¶9
The applicant's prayer to quash the summoning order dated 29.01.2013 and the proceedings in Complaint Case No. 1401 of 2010 is refused.ratio¶10
If the applicant applies for bail before the concerned court within 30 days, the bail application shall be considered and disposed of expeditiously in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2021) 10 SCC 773.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Application under Section 528 BNSS to quash a summoning order dated 29.01.2013 and the ensuing proceedings in Complaint Case No. 1401 of 2010 (Chhedi Lal v. Shrikant Raj @ Ramlakhan Yadav) under Section 419 IPC, P.S. Dhoomanganj, District Prayagraj/Allahabad, pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Allahabad — Held, on the material on record it cannot be said at this stage that no offence is made out prima facie against the applicant; the submissions raised disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated under Section 528 BNSS, a power exercisable only where there is failure of justice or misuse of judicial mechanism or procedure, or the sentence or order was not correct, to prevent abuse of process and miscarriage of justice. Prayer refused. However, if the applicant applied for bail within 30 days, the court below was to consider and dispose of it expeditiously in light of Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2021) 10 SCC 773, and no coercive action was to be taken against the applicant for 30 days or until such bail application, whichever is earlier. Application disposed of (Nand Prabha Shukla, J.).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 39798 of 2025

Shrikant Raj Alias Ram Lakhan Yadav

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

Court No. - 80

HON'BLE NAND PRABHA SHUKLA, J.

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

The present application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been preferred to quash the impugned summoning order dated 29.01.2013 as well as the entire proceedings arising thereof passed in Complaint Case No. 1401 of 2010 (Chhedi Lal Vs. Shrikant Raj @ Ramlakhan Yadav), under Section 419 IPC, P.S. Dhoomanganj, District Prayagraj/Allahabad, pending in the court of Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Allahabad and it is further prayed to stay the effect and operation of the aforesaid proceeding.

From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case, at this stage, it cannot be said that prima facie no offence is made out against the applicant. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 528 B.N.S.S. Only in cases where the Court finds that there has been failure of justice or misuse of judicial mechanism or procedure, sentence or order was not correct, this power may be exercised to prevent the abuse of process and miscarriage of justice. Therefore, no interference is required.

Accordingly, prayer of the applicant is refused.

However, considering the prayer made by learned counsel for the

NA528 No. 39798 of 2025

2

applicant, it is directed that in case the applicant applies for bail before the concerned court within 30 days from today, the same shall be considered and disposed of expeditiously in the light of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, reported in (2021) 10 SCC 773.

For a period of 30 days from today or till the time of applying the bail application before the court concerned, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant in Complaint Case No. 1401 of 2010 (Chhedi Lal Vs. Shrikant Raj @ Ramlakhan Yadav), under Section 419 IPC, P.S. Dhoomanganj, District Prayagraj/Allahabad, pending in the court of Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Allahabad.

With the above observations, this application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. is disposed of .

(Nand Prabha Shukla,J.)

October 14, 2025 Nisha

Digitally signed by :- nisha kumari High Court of Judicature at Allahabad