Disposed

Colonel R.P.S. Dhillon (Retired) @ Rajinderpal Singh Dhillon v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC18 Nov 2025NA528/45329/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application to quash complaint proceedings and summoning order under Sections 504, 506 IPC was declined as the matter involved disputed questions of fact. The court directed the trial court to decide any discharge application within six weeks by a reasoned order and barred coercive measures till its disposal.

What did the court decide?

Quashing declined; discharge application to be decided within six weeks; no coercive measures against applicant till disposal.

Colonel R.P.S. Dhillon (Retired) @ Rajinderpal Singh… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 45329 of 2025

¶3

Colonel R.P.S. Dhillon (Retired) @ Rajinderpal Singh Dhillon

¶4

ng on	.....Applicant(s)
	Versus
State of U.P. and Another	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Aditi Pandey, Ramesh Kumar Tiwari
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 entire criminal proceeding arising out of Complaint Case No. 2613 of 2009 titled as R. P. Singh v. Colonel R.P.S. Dhillon along with the order dated 23.07.2025 and the summoning order dated 21.07.2010 under Section 504, 506 IPC pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 07, Agra.

¶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 applicant moves 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. 45329 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 18, 2025

¶19

Aditya Tripathi

¶20

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

Colonel R.P.S. Dhillon (Retired) @ Rajinderpal Singh Dhillon v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Colonel R.P.S. Dhillon (Retired) @ Rajinderpal Singh Dhillon 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

Constable Yaspal Singh and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Murad Ahamad @ Ruhel and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Sukhpal Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohit Sharma vs State of U.P. and Another

Jameer Ahmad and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

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