Disposed

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

Allahabad HC10 Dec 2025NA528/49164/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicant sought quashing of a summoning order passed on a private complaint alleging cheating and forgery. The court held the matter involved disputed questions of fact and no abuse of process was shown. Quashing was declined; directions were issued for expeditious disposal of any discharge or bail application and interim protection against coercive measures.

What the court decided

AI extract

Satya Prakash Bindal vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 49164 of 2025

¶2

Satya Prakash Bindal

¶3

.....Applicant(s)

¶4

	Versus
State of U.P. and Another	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: Ashwani Kumar, Sati Shanker Tripathi : 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

This application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed to quash the impugned summoning order dated 03.10.2025 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chhata, District-Mathura, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station-Kosi Kalan, District-Mathura in Complaint Case No. 3346 of 2022 (Sunil Kumar Vs. Satya Prakash) as well as entire proceedings of abovementioned Complaint Case.

¶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 applicant claims 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 within six weeks from the date of the application, if there is no other legal

¶12

NA528 No. 49164 of 2025

¶13

¶14

impediment.

¶15

In case, the applicant is not on bail, it is further directed that if the applicant appears or surrenders 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.

¶16

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

¶17

With the aforesaid direction, this application is disposed of .

¶18

December 10, 2025 Shivani

¶19

(Nand Prabha Shukla,J.)

¶20

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

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

Case brief

What is this about?

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

Mahesh Prasad Kushwaha vs State of U.P. and Another