Vivek Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:43877

Court No. - 74

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 9345 of 2025

Applicant :- Vivek Kumar Pandey Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajkumar Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent, and perused the record.

¶7

The present application, filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, seeks quashing/stay of the charge sheet dated 31.03.2018 as well as entire proceeding of Case no. 5317 of 2020 (State vs. Vivek Kumar Pandey) arising out of Case Crime no. 0317 of 2017 under Section 67 I.T. (Amendment) Act, 2008, PS- Robertsganj, DistrictSonbhadra pending in the court of learned Civil Judge (S.D.)/F.T.C., District- Sonbhadra along with summoning order dated 09.07.2020 passed by Civil Judge (S.D.)/F.T.C., DistrictSonbhadra.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. Opposite party no. 2 lodged the present FIR against the applicant bearing Case Crime no. 0317 of 2017 alleging therein that applicant has tarnished the image of opposite party no. 2 by way of circulating false complaint against opposite party no. 2. The concerned Investigating Officer, after concluding the investigation, submitted charge sheet before the learned court concerned on dated 31.03.2018 whereupon learned Magistrate concerned took cognizance and passed impugned summoning order against the applicant on dated 09.07.2020.

¶9

It is argued by learned counsel for applicant that applicant is a practicing lawyer in the District Sonbhadra and also works for the Sunmarg News Paper in the same district. Applicant has not posted any false news against informant but has only mentioned about an alleged incident of teasing a lady by the informant whereupon learned Magistrate concerned treated application of victim as complaint case. One day a hot talk took place between the applicant and informant and therefore the informant has lodged the

¶10

present case against the applicant on the basis of false and fabricated story. The learned trial court has taken cognizance on the impugned charge-sheet without application of judicial mind, and thereafter, erroneously summoned the applicant, which is vitiated under law.

¶11

Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer sought through the instant application.

¶12

After hearing the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, including the FIR, statements of the complainant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., it is observed that prima facie offence is made out against the applicant. The assertions of false implication raised by the applicant are factual issues that requires proper adjudication by the trial court based on evidence and cannot be conclusively determined in proceedings under Section 528 BNSS.

¶13

It is well settled that the inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS are to be exercised sparingly and with caution, primarily to prevent abuse of the process of the court or to secure the ends of justice. In the instant case, no sufficient ground have been made out to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 BNSS.

¶14

In view of the foregoing, the application under Section 528 BNSS is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed .

¶15

Order Date :- 24.3.2025 Shaswat

¶16

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

Vivek Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vivek Kumar Pandey 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases