Disposed

Ramlal Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC3 Nov 2025NA528/42614/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant sought to quash a summoning order and criminal proceedings under Section 420 IPC. The Court held that no offence was made out on the basis of the material available at the summoning stage. The prayer for quashing was declined, but the applicant was permitted to move a discharge application in the trial court.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing declined; applicant permitted to move discharge application in trial court; no coercive measures till disposal.

Ramlal Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 42614 of 2025

¶3

Ramlal Yadav

¶4

	Versus	.....Applicant(s)
State of U.P. and Another		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)		: Umesh Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)		: G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 80

¶6

HON'BLE NAND PRABHA SHUKLA, J.

¶7

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

¶8

The present application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed with a prayer to quash the summoning order dated 02.04.2025 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chitrakoot along with entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 442 of 2021 (Ram Pratap v. Ramlal Yadav Lekhpal) under Section 420 IPC, Police Station-Karvi, District-Chitrakoot pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Chitrakoot.

¶9

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 applicant. 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.

¶10

Accordingly, prayer for quashing is declined.

¶11

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 giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties by a reasoned and speaking

¶12

NA528 No. 42614 of 2025

¶13

¶14

order within six weeks from the date of the application, if there is no other legal impediment.

¶15

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

¶16

With the aforesaid direction, this application is disposed of .

¶17

(Nand Prabha Shukla,J.)

¶18

November 3, 2025

¶19

Aditya Tripathi

¶20

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

Ramlal Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramlal Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dilip Dixit and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Dilshad Nawaz Zaidi and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Jasvindar Singh and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Hafiz Ali vs State of U.P. and Another

Shiv Kumar Tiwari and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Prashant vs State of U.P. and Another