Dismissed¶21

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

Allahabad HC16 Dec 2025NA528/50125/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 528 BNSS; quashing of summoning order; Complaint Case No. 193037 of 2022; Rajesh Singh vs. Ranno Devi; Special Chief Judicial Magistrate Varanasi; P.S. Rohaniya District Varanasi; Sections 379, 323, 504, 506, 452 I.P.C.; Section 138 NI Act; Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C.; prima facie case; State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335; Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315; R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866; cheque dishonour; snatching of golden chain; assault and house trespass; property sale dispute; Allahabad High Court; Anish Kumar Gupta, J.; application dismissed; Ranno Devi; State of U.P.

What did the court decide?

On the material available on record, a prima facie case is made out against the applicants. ¶18

Ranno Devi and Another vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the summoning order dated 17.11.2023 passed in Complaint Case No. 193037 of 2022 and the ensuing criminal proceedings against the applicants ought to be quashed under Section 528 BNSS.

¶14

Court's answer

On the material available on record, a prima facie case is made out against the applicants.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

In the light of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, and R.P. Kapur vs. State of Punjab, this Court does not find any good reason to interfere with the summoning order and accordingly dismisses the application under Section 528 BNSS.

¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Anish Kumar Gupta, J.), December 16, 2025 — Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 50125 of 2025 (Ranno Devi and Another v. State of U.P. and Another): Application under Section 528 BNSS sought quashing of the summoning order dated 17.11.2023 passed in Complaint Case No. 193037 of 2022 (Rajesh Singh vs. Ranno Devi and Ors.), pending before the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi (P.S. Rohaniya, District Varanasi), wherein Applicant No.1 stands summoned under Sections 379, 323, 504, 506 and 452 I.P.C. and Applicant No.2 under Sections 323, 504, 506 and 452 I.P.C. Background: a disputed proposed property-sale transaction in which the applicants' cheques were twice dishonoured, giving rise to two complaints by opposite party no.2 under Section 138 of the N.I. Act; thereafter a complaint dated 19.08.2022 alleging that the applicants assaulted opposite party no.2, entered his house, abused him and snatched his golden chain, corroborated by witness statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. Held: from the material on record a prima facie case is made out against the applicants; in the light of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335), Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra (2021 SCC OnLine SC 315) and R.P. Kapur vs. State of Punjab (AIR 1960 SC 866), the Court found no good reason to interfere and dismissed the application.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 50125 of 2025

¶3

Ranno Devi And Another

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

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

¶6

Court No. - 80

¶7

(SL No.19)

¶8

HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

¶9

1. Heard Sri Anjani Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Ganesh Pratap, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶10

2. The instant application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed seeking quashing of the impugned summoning order dated 17.11.2023 passed in Complaint Case No. 193037 of 2022 (Rajesh Singh vs. Ranno Devi and Ors.), wherein the Applicant No.1 is summoned under Sections 379, 323, 504, 506, and 452 I.P.C. and Applicant no.2 is summoned under Section 323, 504, 506, and 452 I.P.C., Police Station- Rohaniya, DistrictVaranasi, pending in the court of learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi.

¶11

3. Learned counsel of the applicants submits that there was a dispute between the parties with regard to proposed transaction for sale of a property by the opposite party no.2 to the applicants, for which the applicants had earlier advanced the cheques in favor of the opposite party no.2, which were bounced twice and proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act were initiated against the applicants in both the occasions. Subsequent thereto, the instant complaint case has been lodged by the opposite party no.2 making out a false and fabricated allegations against the applicants and the trial court vide impugned order 17.11.2023 has summoned the applicant no.1 herein for the offenses under Sections 379,

¶12

NA528 No. 50125 of 2025

¶13

¶14

323, 504, 506, and 452 I.P.C., and the remaining applicants for the offense under Section 323, 504, 506, and 452 I.P.C. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that since the applicants' case is nothing but a false and frivolous case lodged against the applicants by the opposite party no.2, therefore, he seeks quashing of the entire proceedings of the instant case.

¶15

4. Per contra , learned AGA for the State submits that from the allegations as made in the complaint case, which are supported by the statement of witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., a prima facie case is made out against the applicants, and the trial court having found prima facie case has summoned the applicants herein. Therefore, no interference is called for while exercising the power under Section 528 BNSS.

¶16

5. Having heard the rival submission so made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the record of the case. From the record of the case, it is reflected that previously there was an agreement between the parties with regard to the purchase and sale of immovable property, in connection of which the applicants herein issued cheques in favor of the opposite party no.2, which were dishonored, for which a case under Section 138 of the N.I. Act was lodged by the opposite party no.2. Again, the applicants had issued fresh cheques, which were also bounced and fresh case under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, was lodged against the applicants.

¶17

6. Subsequent thereto, as per the complaint on 19.08.2022, with regard to the aforesaid transactions and cases lodged by the opposite party no.2, the applicants herein had assaulted the opposite party no.2 and entered into his house and abused him and snatched the golden chain from the house of the opposite party no.2. The aforesaid allegations were supported by statements of witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. In view of the aforesaid, the trial court having found a prima facie case has summoned the applicants as aforesaid.

¶18

7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstance of the case, from the material available on record, a prima facie case is made out against the applicants herein. Therefore, in the light of the judgements of the Apex

¶19

NA528 No. 50125 of 2025

¶20

¶21

Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426], Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and Others : 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315 and R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 , this Court do not find any good reason to interfere with the same and accordingly, the same is dismissed .

¶22

(Anish Kumar Gupta,J.)

¶23

December 16, 2025 Shubham Arya

¶24

Digitally signed by :- SHUBHAM ARYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranno 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

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhagesh Kumar and Another vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Uma Shankar Yadav Pno No 892520655 and 7 Others vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Shiv Kumar vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Aashiq Shaukat Ali vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sarvesh Kumar Yadav and 5 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

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