Dismissed¶11

Manita Gurjar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC18 Nov 2025NA528/45460/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Inherent jurisdiction of High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. / Section 528 BNSS not available where remedy of appeal exists under Section 14A of the 1989 Act — Full Bench ruling in Ghulam Rasool Khan v. State of U.P. (para 17(iii), Question III answered in negative) followed — application by Manita Gurjar against State of U.P. dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to pursue alternative remedy — certified FIR/order sheet to be returned after retaining photo-stat copy. Allahabad High Court, Deepak Verma, J., November 18, 2025.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to avail appropriate/alternative remedy; certified copy of the F.I.R./order sheet to be returned to the applicants as per rule after retaining a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. ¶11

Manita Gurjar vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶11

Issue for consideration

Whether an aggrieved person who possesses the remedy of appeal under Section 14A of the 1989 Act may invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (invoked here via the application under Section 528 BNSS); per the Full Bench judgment in Ghulam Rasool Khan (para 17(iii)), Question No. (III) was answered in the negative.

¶9

Court's answer

Following the Full Bench judgment in Ghulam Rasool Khan v. State of U.P. (para 17(iii), Question III answered negatively: an aggrieved person having the remedy of appeal under Section 14A of the 1989 Act cannot invoke the Court's inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.), the Court permitted the applicant to withdraw the application with liberty to avail the appropriate remedy.

¶10

Ratio / Principle

The application under Section 528 BNSS was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to avail the alternative remedy.

¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Court No. 74), Deepak Verma, J.: Application under Section 528 BNSS No. 45460 of 2025 filed by Manita Gurjar against State of U.P. and Another — dismissed as withdrawn (decision dated November 18, 2025). Relying on the Full Bench judgment in Ghulam Rasool Khan and others v. State of U.P. and others, wherein para 17(iii) answers Question No. (III) in the negative — an aggrieved person having the remedy of appeal under Section 14A of the 1989 Act cannot invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. — the learned Single Judge permitted the applicant to withdraw the application and dismissed it as withdrawn with liberty to avail the appropriate alternative remedy. The Court further directed return of the certified copy of the F.I.R./order sheet to the applicants, retaining a photo-stat copy on the record.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 45460 of 2025

¶3

Manita Gurjar

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

	Versus
State of U.P. and Another	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Adesh Kumar, Sarita Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 74

¶7

HON'BLE DEEPAK VERMA, J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record.

¶9

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.

¶10

In view of the aforesaid judgment, the applicant is permitted to withdraw the application with liberty to avail appropriate remedy.

¶11

The application is, accordingly dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to avail alternative remedy.

¶12

Certified copy of the F.I.R./order sheet be returned to the applicants, as per rule, after retaining a photo-stat copy of the same on the record.

¶13

(Deepak Verma,J.)

¶14

November 18, 2025 Nitin Verma

¶15

Digitally signed by :- NITIN KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Manita Gurjar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manita Gurjar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sudhir Pandey and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Ravi @ Shivkumar vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Baggadh and 5 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Abhishek Sachan vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Surat Yadav and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another