Dismissed¶16

Chand v. State of U. P.through Principal Secretary Home Gov. of U.P.

Allahabad HC11 May 2026A482/3053/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing application dismissed as not pressed; Allahabad High Court; Samit Gopal, J.; impugned summoning/order dated 31.08.2021; Final Report No. 1041 of 2019; case crime No. 148 of 2018; Sections 354B, 506 IPC; Section 7/8 POCSO Act; P.S. Bhrampuri, District Meerut; Special Court POCSO Court No.1 Meerut; impleadment application 01.05.2024 allowed 13.11.2025; applicants not accused/not summoned; wrongly arrayed; intention to file better petition; prior notice to opposite party no.2; no case law relied upon.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief on merits; the quashing application was dismissed as not pressed, pending applications disposed of, with a direction that prior notice of any better petition be served on learned counsel for the opposite party no.2. ¶16

Chand Vs State of U. P.through Principal… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 31.08.2021 passed in Final Report No. 1041 of 2019 and the entire proceedings arising out of case crime No. 148 of 2018 should be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (the issue was not adjudicated; the application was dismissed as not pressed).

¶10

Court's answer

The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed as not pressed, counsel for the applicants having submitted that applicants no. 2 and no. 3 were wrongly arrayed pursuant to the impleadment application and that he intends to file a better petition.

¶16

Ratio / Principle

Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

¶17

Key takeaways

Direction that prior notice of the better petition, if filed, shall be served on learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 by learned counsel for the applicants.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Samit Gopal, J.): Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by Chand, Mausin, Rashid and Mohd. Nazim seeking quashing of the order dated 31.08.2021 passed by the Addl. District and Sessions Judge/Special Court (POCSO Act), Court No.1, Meerut in Final Report No. 1041 of 2019 (arising out of case crime No. 148 of 2018, under Sections 354B, 506 IPC and Section 7/8 POCSO Act, P.S. Bhrampuri, District Meerut) and of the entire proceedings, with a prayer to stay further proceedings. Applicants no. 2 to 4 and opposite party nos. 3 and 4 had been added pursuant to an impleadment application dated 01.05.2024 allowed on 13.11.2025. During arguments the Court noticed that applicants no. 2 (Mausin) and no. 3 (Rashid) were not accused and had not been summoned by the order dated 31.08.2021; learned counsel conceded they were wrongly arrayed and prayed that the application be dismissed as not pressed as he intended to file a better petition. Held: prayer allowed; application dismissed as not pressed; pending applications disposed of; prior notice of the better petition, if filed, to be served on counsel for opposite party no.2. No merits adjudicated; no precedent discussed.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3053 of 2022

¶3

Chand

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus
State Of U. P.Through Principal Secretary Home Gov. Of U.P.	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Abhishek
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 75

¶7

HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.

¶8

1. List revised.

¶9

Heard Sri Abhishek, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Ajay Singh, learned AGA-I for the State and perused the record.

¶10

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants Chand, Mausin, Rashid and Mohd. Nazim, with the prayers to quash the impugned order dated 31.08.2021 passed by Addl. District and Session Judge/Special Court, POCSO Act, Court No.1, Meerut in Final Report No. 1041 of 2019 arising out of case crime No. 148 of 2018, under Section 354B, 506 IPC and Section 7/8 POCSO Act, P.S. Bhrampuri, District Meerut as well as entire proceeding and with a further prayer to stay the further proceeding of the aforesaid case, during the pendency of the present application.

¶11

The present petition was initially filed for the accused Chand but subsquently an application for impleadment dated 01.05.2024 was filed with the prayer to implead three other persons as applicants and two respondents which was allowed vide order dated 13.11.2025 in compliance of which accused Mousin as the applicant no.2, Rashid as the applicant no.3 and Mohd. Nazim as the applicant no.4 were impleaded and Asmin as the opposite party no.3 and Smt. Nazreen as the opposite party no.4 were impleaded.

¶12

During arguments this Court noticed that the applicant no.2/Mausin and applicant no.3/Rashid are not accused in the matter and they have not been summoned vide order dated 31.08.2021. On countering learned counsel for the applicants about the said fact he submits that they have been wrongly arrayed as applicants on the basis of an impleadment application. He submits that the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. be dismissed as not pressed as he intends to file a better petition.

¶13

A482 No. 3053 of 2022

¶14

¶15

Prayer is allowed.

¶16

The application is dismissed as not pressed.

¶17

Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

¶18

It is provided that prior notice of the better petition if filed shall be served on learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 by learned counsel for the applicants.

¶19

(Samit Gopal,J.)

¶20

May 12, 2026 M. ARIF/e-file

¶21

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Chand v. State of U. P.through Principal Secretary Home Gov. of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chand v. State of U. P.through Principal Secretary Home Gov. of U.P.

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

Similar cases

Rashid Khan and 2 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Kuldeep Baghel vs State of Up and Another

Vibhas Chandra vs State of U.P. and Another

Faizul Hasan and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Lalu Tiwari Alias Kamlakant and 3 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Ashish B Egvert Vs State of U.P.