Disposed¶19

Dependra Singh @ Sonu v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC4 May 2026A482/3727/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 482 Cr.P.C. application to set aside chargesheet and summoning order; sections 498-A/323/504 IPC and sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act; Police Station Nanpara, District Bahraich; Case No. 11762 of 2020; cognizance and summoning order by Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 29.10.2020; direction to file discharge application, decision within 30 days; Dependra Singh @ Sonu vs State of U.P.; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; 2026; disposal without quashing.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the applicant to file a discharge application before the court below within two weeks; if filed, the court below to decide it within a further 30 days strictly in accordance with law. No order setting aside the chargesheet or cognizance/summoning order. ¶19

Dependra Singh @ Sonu vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the Chargesheet No.01 of 2020 dated 21.07.2020 and the cognizance/summoning order dated 29.10.2020 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bahraich in Case No. 11762 of 2020 should be set aside in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., it being contended that there is no evidence against the applicant and the proceedings amount to harassment.

¶10

Court's answer

The applicant is permitted to file an application for discharge before the court below within a period of two weeks from the date of the order.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

If such discharge application is filed, the court below shall decide it within a further period of 30 days, strictly in accordance with law.

¶18

Key takeaways

With the aforesaid observation, the application is disposed of; the court did not itself set aside the chargesheet or the cognizance/summoning order nor adjudicate the merits of the abuse-of-process objection.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench (Shree Prakash Singh, J.) — Application U/S 482 No. 3727 of 2026, decided May 4, 2026. Dependra Singh @ Sonu sought setting aside of Chargesheet No.01 of 2020 dated 21.07.2020 under sections 498-A, 323, 504 IPC and section 3/4 D.P. Act (Police Station Nanpara, District Bahraich) and the cognizance/summoning order dated 29.10.2020 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bahraich in Case No. 11762 of 2020. Counsel contended there was no evidence and proceedings rested solely on Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements; the State opposed. The Court did not quash or examine the merits; noting no objection from the AGA, it permitted the applicant to file a discharge application before the court below within two weeks, to be decided within a further 30 days strictly in accordance with law, and disposed of the application.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3727 of 2026

¶3

Dependra Singh @ Sonu

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Gyan Singh Chauhan, Archana Kamal, Manju Devi, Saud Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶7

Court No. - 16

¶8

HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

¶9

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

¶10

The instant application has been filed with prayer to set-aside the impugned Chargesheet No.01 of 2020, dated 21.07.2020 filed under section 498-A, 323 and 504 IPC & section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station - Nanpara, District - Bahraich and impugned cognizance and summoning order dated 29.10.2020 passed in Case No. 11762 of 2020 "State Vs. Dependra Singh A Sonu", under section 498-A, 323, 504 IPC & 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Nanpara, District Bahraich, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Bahraich.

¶11

Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that there is no evidence at all against the applicant and only on the basis of statement recorded by the police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., the whole proceeding has been initiated and chargesheet has been filed. He added that the criminal proceedings against the present applicant is nothing but harassment.

¶12

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State has opposed the contention aforesaid and submits that there is no abuse of process of law and only factual matrix has been agitated before this Court and that could not be gone into at this stage, invoking the jurisdiction under

¶13

A482 No. 3727 of 2026

¶14

¶15

Section 482 Cr.P.C. and thus the application is liable to be dismissed.

¶16

After the argument at length, learned counsel for the applicant submits that interest of justice would be sub-served, if this Court directs the court below to permit the applicants to appear before the court below and file an application of discharge. He further submits that the court below may be directed to decide the discharge application within stipulated period of time, as may be fixed by this Court.

¶17

Learned AGA for the State has no objection to the aforesaid submission.

¶18

In view of aforesaid, the applicant is permitted to file an application for discharge before the court below within a period of two weeks from today and if such an application is filed, the same shall be decided within a further period of 30 days, strictly in accordance with law.

¶19

With the aforesaid observation, the application is disposed of .

¶20

(Shree Prakash Singh,J.)

¶21

May 4, 2026

¶22

V. Sinha

¶23

Digitally signed by :- VAISHALI SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Dependra Singh @ Sonu v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dependra Singh @ Sonu v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. 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

Similar cases

Ramesh @ Ramesh Kumar Yadav and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Subhash vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Rajesh Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Bramhadutt and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Chandrashekhar @ Chandrashekhar Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Rishabh Patel vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.