Vinod and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Vinod and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Prayer to quash the summoning order dated 01.12.2022 and the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 10865 of 2021 was refused (no interference); however, the applicants were directed that a bail application moved before the concerned court within 30 days shall be considered and disposed of expeditiously per the law laid down in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2021) 10 SCC 773, and no coercive measures shall be taken against them for 30 days or until such bail application is filed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the prayer to quash the summoning order dated 01.12.2022 and the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 10865 of 2021 (Yogendra v. Vinod and others) should be granted under Section 528 BNSS. +2 more

Court's answer

Therefore, no interference by this Court is required and the prayer of the applicants is refused.

Ratio / Principle

At this stage, it cannot be said that prima facie no offence is made out against the applicants.

Key takeaways

All the submissions made at the bar relate to disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 528 BNSS.ratio¶11
The Section 528 BNSS power may be exercised only in cases where the Court finds failure of justice or misuse of judicial mechanism or procedure, or that the sentence or order was not correct, in order to prevent abuse of process or miscarriage of justice.ratio¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Hon'ble Nand Prabha Shukla, J.), Court No. 80 — Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 7409 of 2025 (Vinod and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and Another), decided October 8, 2025. The applicants sought quashing of the summoning order dated 01.12.2022 and the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 10865 of 2021 (Yogendra v. Vinod and others) under Sections 147, 323, 504 IPC, Police Station Ranipur, District Mau, pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Mau. The Court held that at this stage it could not be said that prima facie no offence was made out against the applicants; all submissions related to disputed questions of fact not adjudicable under Section 528 BNSS, a power exercisable only where there is failure of justice or misuse of judicial mechanism or procedure, or where the sentence or order was not correct, to prevent abuse of process or miscarriage of justice. The quashing prayer was accordingly refused. Directions: if the applicants apply for bail before the concerned court within 30 days, it shall be considered and disposed of expeditiously in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2021) 10 SCC 773 (relied upon); further, no coercive measures were to be taken against the applicants for 30 days or till the bail application was filed. Application disposed of.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 7409 of 2025

Vinod And 6 Others

.....Applicant(s)

	Versus
State of U.P. and Another	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: Mukul Yadav, Rajesh Yadav : G.A.

Court No. - 80

HON'BLE NAND PRABHA SHUKLA, J.

Supplementary affidavit filed today in Court is taken on record.

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State.

The present application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed with a prayer to allow this application and quash the summoning order dated 01.12.2022 as well as entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 10865 of 2021 (Yogendra v. Vinod and others) under Sections 147, 323, 504 IPC, Police Station Ranipur, District Mau pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Mau.

From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case, at this stage, it cannot be said that prima facie 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 under Section 528 BNSS. Only in cases, where the Court finds that there has been failure of justice or misuse of judicial mechanism or procedure, sentence or order was not correct, this power may be exercised to prevent the abuse of process of miscarriage of justice. Therefore, no interference is required.

Accordingly, prayer of the applicants is refused.

However, considering the prayer made by learned counsel for the applicants, it is directed that in case the applicants apply for bail before the concerned court within 30 days from today, the same shall be considered and disposed of expeditiously in the light of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case

NA528 No. 7409 of 2025

2

of Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, reported in (2021) 10 SCC 773 .

For a period of 30 days from today or till the time of applying the bail application before the court concerned, no coercive measures shall be taken against the applicants.

With the above observations, this application under Section 528 BNSS is disposed of.

October 8, 2025 Aditya Tripathi

(Nand Prabha Shukla,J.)

Digitally signed by :- ADITYA TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad