Dismissed¶15

Ayyub v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC13 Nov 2025NA528/41979/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court (Nand Prabha Shukla, J.), November 13, 2025; Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 41979 of 2025 (Ayyub v. State of U.P. and Another). Keywords: Section 528 BNSS; Section 223 BNSS; challenge to notice before cognizance; notice without hearing; complaint case; Judicial Magistrate-IV Allahabad; premature challenge not tenable; application dismissed. No precedents cited.

What did the court decide?

Where no summoning/cognizance order has been passed against the applicant, a challenge to a notice is not tenable. ¶10

Ayyub 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. - 41979 of 2025

¶3

Versus Ayyub	.....Applicant(s)
State of U.P. and Another	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: Rakesh Pratap Singh : G.A.

¶4

Court No. - 80

¶5

HON'BLE NAND PRABHA SHUKLA, J.

¶6

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

¶7

The present application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed with a prayer to impugned notice dated 01.07.2025 as well as entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No. 250 of 2025 (Mataphal Yadav v. Ayyub), Police Station-Phoolpur, DistrictPrayagraj pending before learned Judicial Magistrate-IV, Allahabad.

¶8

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the impugned notice has been issued to the applicant without affording any opportunity of hearing as provided under Section 223 of the BNSS.

¶9

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer and submitted that merely a notice has been issued to the applicant and no summoning/cognizance order has been passed against the applicant.

¶10

Considering the fact that no summoning/cognizance order has been passed against the applicant, the Court is of the view that challenge to a notice is not tenable. The applicant still have

¶11

NA528 No. 41979 of 2025

¶12

¶13

every opportunity of replying to the impugned notice issued to him and to contest the proceedings, if any, that may be drawn on its basis. Therefore, no prejudice has been caused in view of the Section 223 of the BNSS.

¶14

No interference is required.

¶15

The instant application is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶16

November 13, 2025 Aditya Tripathi

¶17

(Nand Prabha Shukla,J.)

¶18

Digitally signed by :- ADITYA TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ayyub v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ayyub v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gaurav Mittal and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Ved Prakash Shukla and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajesh and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashish Mishra and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Jitendra and 6 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Rakesh Kumar Jatav and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another