Dinesh Tiwari Alias Kulavendra Nath Tripathi and Another vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Dinesh Tiwari Alias Kulavendra Nath Tripathi and Another vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Interim stay of the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No.08 of 2024 till the next date of listing, with liberty to the opposite parties to file counter affidavit within four weeks and rejoinder within two weeks thereafter, and listing after expiry of that period.

Issue for consideration

Whether the summoning order dated 04.01.2025 and the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.08 of 2024 should be quashed, on the applicants' contention that the complaint was lodged after an unexplained delay of nearly two years and that the alleged eyewitness Krishna Murari has not been examined. +1 more

Court's answer

Upon hearing counsel and perusing the record, the Court found that, in view of the submissions made on behalf of the applicants, the matter requires consideration; the application was therefore admitted for further contest rather than rejected at the threshold.

Ratio / Principle

The opposite parties were permitted to file their counter affidavit within four weeks.

Key takeaways

Rejoinder affidavit, if any, was permitted to be filed within two weeks thereafter, with the matter to be listed after expiry of the aforesaid period.ratio¶11
As an interim measure, the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No.08 of 2024 (Tetari Devi vs. Dinesh Tiwari and Another) was directed to remain stayed till the next date of listing.ratio¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 6689 of 2025 filed by Dinesh Tiwari alias Kulavendra Nath Tripathi and another seeking quashing of the summoning order dated 04.01.2025 and the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.08 of 2024 (Tetari Devi vs. Dinesh Tiwari and Another), under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(s) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Robertsganj, District Sonbhadra, pending before the learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Sonbhadra. Learned counsel for the applicants urged that the complaint was lodged after a delay of nearly two years without plausible explanation, that the alleged eyewitness Krishna Murari was not examined, and that summoning rested solely on interested witnesses, placing reliance on Tejai (Allahabad High Court, order dated 03.07.2015) and Ramesh Chandra Vaishya vs. State of U.P. and Another, 2023 SCC Online SC 668. Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Manju Rani Chauhan held that the matter requires consideration; counter affidavit within four weeks and rejoinder within two weeks thereafter were permitted, and the entire proceeding was stayed till the next date of listing. Order dated 16.4.2025.

Court No. - 52

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 6689 of 2025

Applicant :- Dinesh Tiwari Alias Kulavendra Nath Tripathi And Another

Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Singh,Kishan Gautam Counsel for Opposite Party :- Piyush Tripathi,G.A.

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

This application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed to quash the Summoning order dated 04.01.2025 and the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No.08 of 2024 (Tetari Devi vs. Dinesh Tiwari and Another), under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1) (s) S.C./S.T., Police Station- Robertsganj, District- Sonbhadra, pending in the court of learned Special Judge S.C./S.T. Act, Sonbhadra.

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the complaint has been lodged after a delay of nearly two years without giving any plausible explanation for the same. He further submits that for the said incident, no independent witness has been examined. In the complaint itself, it has been stated that the incident was witnessed by Krishna Murari who has not been examined. He further contends that on the basis of statements of interested witnesses, the applicants have been summoned which cannot be done in view of order dated 03.07.2015 passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Application U/S 482/378/407 No. - 686 of 2015 (Tejai And Ors. vs. The State Of U.P And Anr.) . He has also placed reliance upon a judgment passed by Apex Court in the case of Ramesh Chandra Vaishya vs. State of U.P. and Another reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 668 .

In view of the above, the matter requires consideration.

Opposite parties may file counter affidavit within four weeks.

Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter.

List after expiry of the aforesaid period.

Till the next date of listing, the entire proceeding of the aforesaid case shall remain stayed .

Order Date :- 16.4.2025 Kalp Nath Singh

Digitally signed by :- KALP NATH SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad