Disposed¶14

Ram Ashish and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Home Secy. Lko and Another

Allahabad HC27 Jun 2025NA528/587/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Ram Ashish v. State of U.P.; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; Pankaj Bhatia J.; Application U/S 528 BNSS 587 of 2025; quashment of summoning order 18.04.2025; Criminal Case No. 2460 of 2025; Sections 323, 504, 379 IPC; mala fide prosecution; disputed defence; discharge application S. 239/227/228/245 Cr.P.C.; no coercive action; interim protection lapses automatically; petition disposed off.

What did the court decide?

Quashment refused; petition disposed of with protective directions: discharge application to be filed within 15 days and decided preferably within two months; no coercive action for 15 days, extendable for further two months or till disposal of the discharge application, provided the application is filed within 15 days, failing which this order lapses automatically. ¶14

Ram Ashish and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Home Secy. Lko and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether the summoning order dated 18.04.2025 passed in Criminal Case No. 2460 of 2025 under Sections 323, 504, 379 IPC should be quashed, the applicants contending that no offence against them is disclosed and the prosecution was instituted mala fide to harass them.

¶8

Ratio / Principle

The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at the stage of the quashment application.

¶9

Key takeaways

The applicants have a right of discharge under Section 239 or 227/228/245 Cr.P.C., as the case may be, through a proper application before the Trial Court, where they are free to take all their submissions.ratio¶9
After hearing counsel and perusing the averments in the application, the prayer for quashing the proceedings of the aforementioned case is refused.ratio¶10
If the applicants move an appropriate discharge application through counsel before the concerned Court below within 15 days, it shall be considered and disposed of expeditiously in accordance with law, preferably within two months.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Application under S. 528 BNSS (No. 587 of 2025) by Ram Ashish and 2 others seeking quashment of the summoning order dated 18.04.2025 in Criminal Case No. 2460 of 2025 (Ss. 323, 504, 379 IPC) on the plea that no offence was disclosed and the prosecution was mala fide. Pankaj Bhatia, J. held that disputed defences cannot be considered at the quashing stage and refused the prayer for quashment, pointing the applicants to a discharge application under S. 239 or 227/228/245 Cr.P.C. before the Trial Court. Interim protection was conditioned: no coercive action for 15 days, extendable up to two months or till disposal of a discharge application filed within 15 days, failing which the order automatically lapses.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:36653

¶2

Court No. - 9

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 587 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Ram Ashish And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Home Secy. Lko And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjeev Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

1. Heard.

¶7

2. Present application has been filed seeking quashment of summoning order dated 18.04.2025 passed in Criminal Case No.2460 of 2025, under Section 323, 504, 379 IPC.

¶8

3. Contention of the counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. Learned Counsel pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.

¶9

4. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the applicants have got a right of discharge under Section 239 or 227/228/245 Cr.P.C., as the case may be, through a proper application for the said purpose and they are free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the Trial Court.

¶10

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the averments made in the present application, the prayer for quashing the proceedings of the aforementioned case is refused.

¶11

6. However, it is provided that in case, the applicants move an appropriate application for discharge through counsel before the concerned Court below within a period of 15 days from today, the same shall be considered and disposed off as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law, by the concerned court below preferably within a period of two months.

¶12

7. No coercive action shall be taken against the applicants for the next 15 days from today which benefit shall extend for further two months or disposal of the discharge application only if the applicants move the said application within 15 days from today.

¶13

8. In case no such application is filed within a period of 15 days from today, as prescribed above, the present order shall stand automatically come to an end.

¶14

9. With the aforesaid directions, this petition is disposed off.

¶15

Order Date :- 27.6.2025 nishant

¶16

Digitally signed by :- NISHANT MOHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ram Ashish and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Home Secy. Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Ashish and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Home Secy. Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Jaan Ahmad Khan @ Mukhtar Ahmad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Hcbl Cooperative Bank Ltd.Thru. Chairman Abhay Kumar Srivastava vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Cooperative Lko. and 4 Others

Ram Sagar @ Ram Sagar Goswami vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Ram Murat Yadav and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Farid Vs State of U.P. through Secretary, Home Department, Lucknow and Another

Juvenile X Thru . His Father Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others