Disposed¶18

Manish Gupta v. State of U.P. and Another

Criminal quashing – Section 528 BNSS

Allahabad HC19 Mar 2026NA528/10972/2026

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court; APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. 10972 of 2026; Manish Gupta v. State of U.P.; quashing of criminal proceedings refused; Section 406 IPC complaint; summoning order 06.06.2025; ACJM Muzaffarnagar; disputed questions of fact; discharge application to be decided within six weeks; bail within 45 days; no coercive measures till discharge application disposed; warrant case on private complaint; Nand Prabha Shukla, J.; March 19, 2026.

What did the court decide?

Quashing declined; application disposed of with directions: discharge application, if filed, to be decided within six weeks by reasoned and speaking order; bail application within 45 days to be considered expeditiously; no coercive measures against the applicant till disposal of the discharge application. ¶18

Manish Gupta vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire criminal proceedings in Complaint Case No.15767 of 2024 under Section 406 IPC and the summoning order dated 06.06.2025 should be quashed under Section 528 BNSS.

¶9

Court's answer

On the material on record, at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant; the submissions relate to disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated by this Court in quashing jurisdiction.

¶10

Ratio / Principle

The inherent/quashing power may be exercised only where the Court finds failure of justice or abuse of procedure, to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

¶10

Key takeaways

Prayer for quashing the criminal proceedings and the summoning order is declined.ratio¶11
If the applicant claims discharge at an appropriate stage through counsel, the Trial Court shall dispose of the discharge application in accordance with law after hearing both parties by a reasoned and speaking order within six weeks from the date of the application, if there is no other legal impediment.ratio¶12
If the applicant is not on bail and appears or surrenders through counsel before the Trial Court and applies for bail within 45 days from the date of the order, the bail application shall be considered and disposed of expeditiously after giving opportunity to the other side.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal quashing — Section 528 BNSS — Complaint Case No.15767 of 2024 (Shubham Bansal v. Manish Gupta) under Section 406 IPC, P.S. Nai Mandi, Muzaffarnagar, and summoning order dated 06.06.2025 — Allahabad High Court (Nand Prabha Shukla, J.) declined to quash, holding that on the record it cannot be said no offence is made out and the submissions raise disputed questions of fact unfit for adjudication in quashing jurisdiction; such power reserved for cases of failure of justice or abuse of procedure. However, treating the matter as a warrant case instituted on private complaint, the Court directed that any discharge application be decided by the Trial Court within six weeks by a reasoned and speaking order after hearing both parties; that a bail application made within 45 days upon appearance/surrender through counsel be considered and disposed of expeditiously; and that no coercive measures be taken against the applicant till disposal of the discharge application. Application disposed of (March 19, 2026).

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 10972 of 2026

¶3

Manish Gupta

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus
State of U.P. and Another	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) :	Sudhanshu Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :	G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 76

¶7

HON'BLE NAND PRABHA SHUKLA, J.

¶8

Heard Mr. Sudhanshu Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶9

The present application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed with a prayer to allow this application and quash the entire criminal proceedings of Complaint Case No.15767 of 2024 (Shubham Bansal Vs. Manish Gupta), under sections 406 of I.P.C., Police Station Nai Mandi, District Muzaffar Nagar and summoning order dated 06.06.2025 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Muzaffarnagar, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Muzaffarnagar .

¶10

From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case, at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court. Only in cases where the Court finds that there has been failure of justice or abuse of procedure, this power may be exercised to prevent the abuse of process to secure the ends of justice.

¶11

Accordingly, prayer for quashing is declined.

¶12

However, in the interest of justice as the matter pertains to warrant case instituted on private complaint, it is provided that in case the applicant claims discharge at an appropriate stage through counsel, the same shall be disposed of by the Trial Court in accordance with law after giving

¶13

NA528 No. 10972 of 2026

¶14

¶15

opportunity of hearing to both the parties by a reasoned and speaking order within six weeks from the date of the application, if there is no other legal impediment.

¶16

In case, the applicants are not on bail, it is further directed that if the applicant appears or surrenders through counsel before the Trial Court and makes an application for bail within 45 days from the date of the order, the same shall be considered and disposed of expeditiously, after giving opportunity to the other side.

¶17

Till the disposal of the discharge application, no coercive measures shall be taken against the applicant in the aforesaid case.

¶18

8.With the aforesaid direction, this application is disposed of.

¶19

(Nand Prabha Shukla,J.)

¶20

March 19, 2026

¶21

Aditya Tripathi

¶22

Digitally signed by :- ADITYA TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Manish Gupta v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish Gupta v. State of U.P. 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shiv Kumar Shukla Vs State of U.P. and Another

Chandrabhan Prajapati vs State of U.P. through Its Principal Secretary Department U.P. at Lucknow and Another

Mahesh Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Jata Shankar Yadav @ Rajesh Yadav and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Ramjan Mohammad vs State of U.P. and Another

Pokhpal vs State of U.P. and Another