Disposed

Rakesh Kumar Varshney and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC4 Nov 2025NA528/41474/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application under Section 528 BNSS sought quashing of a summoning order in a private complaint where applicants were summoned for offences under Sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC. The Court found disputed questions of fact unsuitable for adjudication and declined quashing, but directed the trial court to decide any discharge application within six weeks by a reasoned order and restrained coercive meas

What the court decided

AI extract

Rakesh Kumar Varshney and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 41474 of 2025

¶3

Rakesh Kumar Varshney And 2 Others

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of U.P. and Another

¶7

.....Opposite Party(s)

¶8

Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Zia Uddin Ahmad
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶9

Court No. - 80

¶10

HON'BLE NAND PRABHA SHUKLA, J.

¶11

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

¶12

This application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed to allow the instant application and set aside the impugned summoning order dated 26.09.2019 passed by Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, District-Agra, as well as the entire proceedings in Complaint Case No. 3251 of 2018 (Manoj Kumar Gupta Vs. Rakesh Kumar Varshney and others) whereby the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been allowed and the applicants have been summoned under Sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station-Sikandra, District-Agra.

¶13

From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case, at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court. Only in cases where the Court finds that there has been failure of justice or abuse of procedure, this power may be exercised to prevent the abuse of process to secure the ends of justice.

¶14

Accordingly, prayer for quashing is declined.

¶15

However, in the interest of justice as the matter pertains to warrant case instituted on private complainant, it is provided that in case the applicants move an application for discharge through counsel at an appropriate stage, the same shall be disposed of by the Trial Court in accordance with law after

¶16

NA528 No. 41474 of 2025

¶17

¶18

giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties by a reasoned and speaking order within six weeks from the date of the application, if there is no other legal impediment.

¶19

Till the disposal of the discharge application, no coercive measures shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case.

¶20

With the aforesaid direction, this application is disposed of .

¶21

November 4, 2025 Shivani

¶22

(Nand Prabha Shukla,J.)

¶23

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

Rakesh Kumar Varshney and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Rakesh Kumar Varshney and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramlal Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another

Meera Devi and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Sweta Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Surendra Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Pushpendra Kumar and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Anees Haidar @ Massu vs State of U.P. and 5 Others