Disposed

Chandrapal and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC2 Dec 2025NA528/46629/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application under Section 528 BNSS sought quashing of a summoning order in a criminal case under Sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC. The court held disputed factual questions could not be adjudicated at this stage, refused the prayer, granted 30 days' protection from coercive measures and directed expeditious bail consideration.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash summoning order refused; 30 days' no-coercive-measure protection and expeditious bail direction.

Chandrapal 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. - 46629 of 2025

¶3

Chandrapal 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)	: Neetu Singh, Vishal Kushwaha : G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 80

¶7

HON'BLE NAND PRABHA SHUKLA, J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and perused the records.

¶9

The present application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed with a prayer to allow this application and quash the summoning order dated 04.06.2024 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hathras, under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. Police Station Mursan, District Hathras, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hathras.

¶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 prima facie 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 under Section 528 BNSS. Only in cases, where the Court finds that there has been failure of justice or misuse of judicial mechanism or procedure, sentence or order was not correct, this power may be exercised to prevent the abuse of process of miscarriage of justice. Therefore, no interference is required.

¶11

Accordingly, prayer of the applicants is refused.

¶12

However, considering the prayer made by learned counsel for the applicants, it is directed that in case the applicants apply for bail before the concerned court within 30 days from today, the same shall be considered and disposed of expeditiously in the light of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, reported in (2021) 10 SCC 773 .

¶13

NA528 No. 46629 of 2025

¶14

¶15

For a period of 30 days from today or till the time of applying the bail application before the court concerned, no coercive measures shall be taken against the applicants.

¶16

With the above observations, this application under Section 528 BNSS is disposed of .

¶17

December 2, 2025 CS/-

¶18

(Nand Prabha Shukla,J.)

¶19

Digitally signed by :- CHANDAN SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Chandrapal and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrapal 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

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

Sanjay Kumar and 7 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Vinod Kumar and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajesh Pandey and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Sheelawati and 10 Others vs State of U.P. and 2 Others