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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Prayer to quash the proceedings and summoning order refused; however, the applicant is protected from coercive action for 30 days or until a bail application is filed, whichever is earlier, and any bail application filed within 30 days is to be considered and disposed of expeditiously in light of Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2021) 10 SCC 773.

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 4901 of 2012 and the summoning order dated 03.03.2014 against the applicant ought to be quashed under Section 528 BNSS.

Court's answer

On the material on record it cannot be said that prima facie no offence is made out against the applicant; the submissions at the bar raise disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated by the High Court under Section 528 BNSS, and therefore no interference is required.

Ratio / Principle

The power under Section 528 BNSS may be exercised only where there is failure of justice or misuse of judicial mechanism or procedure, or where a sentence or order was not correct, i.e., to prevent abuse of process or miscarriage of justice.

Key takeaways

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 vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2021) 10 SCC 773.ratio¶12
For a period of 30 days from the date of the order, or till the applicant applies for bail before the court concerned, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant in Complaint Case No. 4901 of 2012.ratio¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Quashing under Section 528 BNSS refused where allegations disclose disputed questions of fact — Allahabad High Court (Nand Prabha Shukla, J.) declined to interfere with the proceedings of Complaint Case No. 4901 of 2012 (Sections 323, 166 IPC, P.S. Nehtaur, District Bijnor) and the summoning order dated 03.03.2014, holding that prima facie absence of offence was not made out and that the Section 528 BNSS power is exercisable only to prevent failure of justice, misuse of judicial mechanism, or abuse of process amounting to miscarriage of justice. Application disposed of with directions: if the applicant applies for bail within 30 days, it shall be considered and disposed of expeditiously in light of Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2021) 10 SCC 773; and no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant for 30 days or till such bail application, whichever is earlier.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 40759 of 2025

Tejpal Singh

.....Applicant(s)

	Versus
State of U.P. and Another	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: Rajiv Sisodia, Shashank Dwivedi : 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 entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 4901 of 2012, summoning order dated 03.03.2014 (Jameel Ahmad Vs. Tejpal Singh and others) under Sections 323, 166 IPC, Police Station-Nehtaur, District-Bijnor, pending in the Court of C.J.M., Bijnor.

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 of 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 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

NA528 No. 40759 of 2025

2

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. 4901 of 2012, summoning order dated 03.03.2014 (Jameel Ahmad Vs. Tejpal Singh and others) under Sections 323, 166 IPC, Police Station-Nehtaur, DistrictBijnor.

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

October 31, 2025 Shivani

(Nand Prabha Shukla,J.)

Digitally signed by :- SHIVANI SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad