Dismissed¶17

Rajendra Kumar Yadav and 5 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC4 May 2026A482/3728/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 528 BNSS application; setting aside discharge-rejection order dated 07.07.2025 (ACJM-II) and Sessions Judge order dated 07.08.2025 in Criminal Revision No.860 of 2025; Complaint Case No.642 of 2024; Sections 452 and 323 IPC; statements under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC; prima facie case; no roving inquiry or weighing of evidence at this stage; family dispute/false implication plea; application dismissed; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; Brij Raj Singh, J.; decided May 4, 2026.

What did the court decide?

On going through the record, the Court found that there is allegation of assault against the applicants. ¶13

Rajendra Kumar Yadav and 5 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3728 of 2026

¶3

Rajendra Kumar Yadav And 5 Others

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sheel Nidhi Shukla, Priya Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶7

Court No. - 15

¶8

HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as Ms. Tanvi Jain, learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the record.

¶10

By means of this application preferred under Section 528 BNSS, the applicants have prayed for setting aside of order dated 07.08.2025 passed by Session Judge in Criminal Revision No.860 of 2025 and order dated 07.07.2025 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II on the application of discharge in Complaint Case No.642 of 2024.

¶11

The applicants have challenged the order rejecting the discharge application on the round that offense under Section 452 IPC is not made out because the applicant nos.1 and 2; and opposite party no.2 are residing in the same house. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that there is no injury, therefore, Section 323 IPC is also not made out.

¶12

He has further submitted that the applicants have been falsely implicated out of enmity. It is a family dispute, therefore, this Court can infer that the applicants have been falsely implicated for the reason that there appears to be a private dispute between the parties.

¶13

After going through the record, it is evident that there is allegation of assault against the applicants. The record further reveals that the summons have been issued after considering the material available on record and after recording the statements under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC, which indicate that offense is made out. At the stage, this Court has

¶14

A482 No. 3728 of 2026

¶15

¶16

to see whether the material on record discloses the commission of any offence. In the present case, after going through the record, it cannot be said that the offence is not made out. Of course, this is a subject matter of trial before the Magistrate. This Court cannot undertake a roving inquiry or weigh the evidence to determine the guilt or innocence of the applicant, for which the trial is required. Only a prima facie case is to be seen, whether the offence is made out or not.Accordingly, the application, being devoid of merits, is rejected.

¶17

The application is devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected.

¶18

(Brij Raj Singh,J.)

¶19

May 4, 2026 Mohit Singh/-

¶20

Digitally signed by :- MOHIT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rajendra Kumar Yadav and 5 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Kumar Yadav and 5 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. 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

Similar cases

Rajendra Kumar Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and Another

Dayaram vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

Mahant Kaushal Kishor Das Chela Bajrang Das vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Ajay Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Smt. Nalini Jain vs State of U.P. Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Home Govt. Lko. and Another

Mohd. Ashraf Kamal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another