Disposed¶18

Amar Pal Singh and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC7 May 2026A482/3834/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Application U/S 482 No. 3834 of 2026, decided May 7, 2026, Shree Prakash Singh, J. Quashing of criminal proceeding / chargesheet no. 280 of 2018 in case crime no. 320 of 2018, Sections 332, 333, 353, 504 IPC, P.S. Ram Nagar, District Barabanki; disposal with liberty to file discharge application before ACJM Court No. 16, Barabanki, to be decided within 30 days; no quashing on merits; no precedent relied upon.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the applicants to file a discharge application before the trial court within two weeks; the trial court to consider and decide such application within a further period of 30 days, strictly in accordance with law. ¶18

Amar Pal Singh and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire criminal proceeding arising out of case crime no. 320 of 2018 under Sections 332, 333, 353, 504 IPC, Police Station Ram Nagar, District Barabanki, together with chargesheet no. 280 of 2018 dated 07-09-2018, is liable to be quashed under Section 482 CrPC. +1 more

¶10

Court's answer

The quashing application under Section 482 CrPC was not decided on merits (neither allowed nor dismissed); it was disposed of with the above direction to the trial court, the State having raised no objection to that course.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

The applicants are permitted to file an application for discharge before the trial court within two weeks; if such an application is filed, the trial court shall consider and decide it within a further period of 30 days, strictly in accordance with law.

¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Application under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding arising out of case crime no. 320 of 2018, under Sections 332, 333, 353, 504 IPC, Police Station Ram Nagar, District Barabanki, pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 16, Barabanki, along with chargesheet no. 280 of 2018 dated 07-09-2018. Applicants contended there was no evidence against them and the proceeding rested solely on Section 161 CrPC police statements, amounting to harassment; the State opposed, contending only factual matrix was agitated. After argument, counsel for the applicants sought liberty to file a discharge application before the trial court, to which the State had no objection. Held: applicants permitted to file a discharge application within two weeks; trial court to decide it within a further 30 days strictly in accordance with law. Application disposed of accordingly.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3834 of 2026

¶3

Amar Pal Singh And Another

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Puneet Kumar Srivastava, Anupam Bajpai, Jay Shankar, Rakesh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶7

Court No. - 16

¶8

HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

¶9

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

¶10

The instant application has been filed with the prayer for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of case arising out of case crime no. 320 of 2018, under sections 332,333,353,504 of I.P.C., Police Station-Ram Nagar, District-Barabanki, pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 16, Barabanki alongwith impugned chargesheet no. 280 of 2018 dated 07-09-2018.

¶11

Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that there is no evidence at all against the applicants 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 applicants 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 Section 482 Cr.P.C. and thus the application is liable to be dismissed.

¶13

A482 No. 3834 of 2026

¶14

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

With the aforesaid observation, the application is disposed of.

¶19

(Shree Prakash Singh,J.)

¶20

May 7, 2026

¶21

AKS

¶22

Digitally signed by :- ANUJ KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Amar Pal Singh and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amar Pal Singh and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home 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

Akhil @ Akhilesh Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Home Secy. U.P. Lko.

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

Rajesh Kumar Maurya @ Rajesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and Another

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

Gufran @ Mohd. Gufran vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Liyakat Shah alias Liyakat Ali and 12 others vs State of U.P. through Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Home,Civil Secretariat and 2 others