Disposed

Ravindra Prasad Pandey and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC10 Dec 2025NA528/46905/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court declined the prayer to quash the summoning order and proceedings in a private complaint case under sections 325, 504, 506 IPC, 452 IPC, holding that disputed facts could not be adjudicated at the quashing stage. The Court directed the Trial Court to dispose of the discharge application within six weeks and prohibited coercive measures pending its disposal.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing declined; discharge application to be heard within six weeks; no coercive measures till disposal.

Ravindra Prasad Pandey and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 46905 of 2025

¶3

Ravindra Prasad Pandey And 2 Others

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

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

¶6

Court No. - 80

¶7

HON'BLE NAND PRABHA SHUKLA, J.

¶8

Heard Sri Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri G.P. Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶9

The present application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been filed with a prayer to quash the summoning order dated 30.07.2025 as well as entire proceeding of Complaint No. 86 of 2023 (Shyam Narain Tiwari Vs. Ravindra Prasad and 2 others) under sections 325, 504, 506, 452 IPC, Police Station Halia, District Mirzapur, pending before Additional Civil Judge (Junior Divison) III. J.M., Mirzapur.

¶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 complaint, it is provided that in case the applicants claim discharge at an appropriate stage through counsel, 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

¶13

NA528 No. 46905 of 2025

¶14

¶15

within six weeks from the date of the application, if there is no other legal impediment.

¶16

In case, the applicants are not on bail, it is further directed that if the applicants appear or surrender through counsel before the Trial Court and makes an application for bail within 45 days from the date of the order, the same shall be considered and disposed of expeditiously, after giving opportunity to the other side.

¶17

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

¶18

With the aforesaid direction, this application is disposed of.

¶19

(Nand Prabha Shukla,J.)

¶20

December 10, 2025 Puspendra

¶21

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

Ravindra Prasad Pandey and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravindra Prasad Pandey and 2 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

Khushboo Gupta Alias Khushi Gupta vs State of U.P.

Prateek Srivastava and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Guddi Devi vs State of U.P.

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

Jitendra vs State of U.P. and Another

Satya Prakash Bindal vs State of U.P. and Another