Disposed

Ankita Yadav and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC25 Nov 2025NA528/46782/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application under Section 528 BNSS seeking to quash summoning order and criminal proceedings declined. The Court found no failure of justice or abuse of process. However, it directed that the applicants may move for discharge, which the Trial Court must dispose of within six weeks, and stayed coercive measures until disposal of the discharge application.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash declined; discharge application permitted; coercive measures stayed pending discharge.

Ankita Yadav and 3 Others 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. - 46782 of 2025

¶3

Ankita Yadav And 3 Others

¶4

	...	..Applicant(s)
State of U.P. and Another		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Kunwar Ajay	Singh
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 impugned summoning order dated 22.07.2025 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Court No.02, Kanpur Dehat in Complaint Case No.10893 of 2024 (Awdhesh Kumar v. Ankita Yadav and others) against the applicant No. 1 under Sections 323, 380, 494, 504, 506 IPC, against Ankita Yadav under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC against Dashrth and Seema under Sections 498, 323, 504, 506 IPC against Rishu, as well as entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No. 10893 of 2024 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Kanpur Dehat.

¶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 complaint, it is provided that in case the applicants

¶12

NA528 No. 46782 of 2025

¶13

¶14

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 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 25, 2025

¶19

Aditya Tripathi

¶20

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

Ankita Yadav and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ankita Yadav and 3 Others 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

Rajpal Singh vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Vijay Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanju and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Hari Priya Chaudhary Alias Chavi vs State of U.P. and Another

Pawan Chaudhari and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Sablu Patel vs State of U.P. and Another