Disposed

Sangeeta Devi and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC21 Nov 2025NA528/46296/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicants sought quashing of complaint-case proceedings for offences under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC. The court held the matter involved disputed questions of fact, declined quashing, but directed expeditious disposal of any discharge application and interim protection from coercive measures.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash declined; discharge application to be decided within six weeks; no coercive measures against applicants till then.

Sangeeta Devi and Another 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. - 46296 of 2025

¶3

Sangeeta Devi And Another

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

	Versus
State of U.P. and Another		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: Pravesh Kumar, Rajeev Ramdeo Mani Tripathi : G.A.	Kumar Yadav,

¶6

Court No. - 80

¶7

HON'BLE NAND PRABHA SHUKLA, J.

¶8

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

¶9

This application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed to quash the entire proceeding arising out of order dated 29.07.2025 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Court No. 12, Jaunpur in Criminal Complaint Case No. 443 of 2024 (Pramila Devi Vs. Sangeeta Devi and others), under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC, pending in the Court of learned ACJM-1, Court No. 12, Jaunpur, Police Station-Khetasarai, District-Jaunpur.

¶10

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 applicants. 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.

¶11

Accordingly, prayer for quashing is declined.

¶12

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

¶13

NA528 No. 46296 of 2025

¶14

¶15

legal impediment.

¶16

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

¶17

With the aforesaid direction, this application is disposed of .

¶18

November 21, 2025 Shivani

¶19

(Nand Prabha Shukla,J.)

¶20

Digitally signed by :- SHIVANI SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sangeeta Devi and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sangeeta Devi and Another 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

Subash Chandra Tiwari vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajendra Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Raghunath Prasad Rawat vs State of U.P. and Another

Abid and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Dheeraj Tiwari and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another