Dismissed¶8

Vipin and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC28 Oct 2025NA528/41521/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 528 BNSS application dismissed as withdrawn; inherent jurisdiction unavailable where Section 14A appeal lies; Full Bench Ghulam Rasool Khan v. State of U.P. para-17(iii) applied; Section 482 Cr.P.C.; Section 14A of the 1989 Act; liberty to avail alternative remedy; FIR/order sheet returned; Allahabad High Court; Deepak Verma, J.; October 29, 2025.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to avail alternative/appropriate remedy; certified copy of the F.I.R./order sheet to be returned to the applicants as per rule after retaining a photo-stat copy on the record. ¶8

Vipin and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 41521 of 2025

¶3

Vipin And 2 Others

¶4

				.....A	pplicant(s)
		Versus
State of U.P. and Another				...	..Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	:	Saurabh Pandey	Pandey,	Suresh	Chandra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	:	G.A.
Court No.- 74

¶5

HON'BLE DEEPAK VERMA, J.

¶6

The full Bench judgment passed in Ghulam Rasool Khan and others Vs. State of U.P. and others the Court in para-17 (iii) has held that Question No. (III) is answered in negative holding that the aggrieved person having remedy of appeal under Section 14A of the 1989 Act, cannot be allowed to invoke inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶7