Ashish Pandey vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Ashish Pandey vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the prayer for quashing the entire proceedings of the criminal case was expressly refused.

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire proceedings of Session Case No. 59 of 2025 (State v. Vijay Vikram and Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 357 of 2023, against the applicant Ashish Pandey ought to be quashed in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 528 BNSS. +1 more

Court's answer

In exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS, the Court is not inclined to conduct a mini trial to examine the applicant's complicity; the applicant retains the opportunity to contest the case and adduce evidence before the trial court, and the disputed defence cannot be considered at this stage.

Ratio / Principle

All the grounds taken by the applicant involve questions of fact; prima facie the complicity of the applicant in the alleged offences cannot be ruled out, and his complicity is a matter of scrutiny more appropriately adjudicated by the trial court after appraisal of the evidence on record (the trial court's discharge order noted the room for the abductee was booked in the applicant's name with his Aadhaar photocopy on the hotel record).

Key takeaways

In absence of any of the grounds recognised by the Supreme Court justifying quashing of the impugned proceedings, the prayer for quashing is not sustainable; moreover, the applicant's discharge application had already been rejected by the trial court after duly considering all the pleas raised.ratio¶15
Reliance placed on Mohd. Allauddin Khan v. State of Bihar, 2019 (6) SCC 107, and Chilakamarthi Venkateswarlu v. State of Andhra Pradesh (decided 31.07.2019): contradictions or inconsistencies in witness statements are essentially issues of appreciation of evidence to be gone into during trial, and consequently no ground is made out to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS for quashing the criminal proceedings against the applicant.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Quashing — inherent jurisdiction under S.528 BNSS — applicant Ashish Pandey sought quashing of the entire proceedings of Session Case No. 59 of 2025 (State v. Vijay Vikram and Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 357 of 2023, under Sections 147, 323, 364-A, 386, 341, 506 and 120-B IPC, P.S. Mau Darwaja, District Farrukhabad (alleged kidnapping of Chandra Mohan on 19.07.2023; applicant alleged to have conspired with the kidnappers and booked the room in which the victim was kept). Grounds urged: FIR lodged after unexplained delay of 36 hours; applicant's name absent from the FIR and from the victim's s.164 Cr.P.C. statement, surfacing only in co-accused Vineet Dubey's confessional statement; charge sheet submitted without cogent evidence; no specific role assigned. Held, dismissing the application: all grounds raise disputed questions of fact; prima facie complicity cannot be ruled out — the trial court's discharge order recorded that the room used to keep the abductee stood booked in the applicant's name with his Aadhaar photocopy on the hotel record; the discharge application had already been rejected after considering all pleas; inherent jurisdiction under S.528 BNSS cannot be exercised to conduct a mini trial, and the applicant remains free to contest the case before the trial court. Relying on Mohd. Allauddin Khan v. State of Bihar, 2019 (6) SCC 107, and Chilakamarthi Venkateswarlu v. State of Andhra Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No.1082 of 2019, decided 31.07.2019), contradictions in witness statements are matters of appreciation of evidence for trial. Prayer refused; application dismissed (Padam Narain Mishra, J., 13.01.2026).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 17588 of 2025

Ashish Pandey

.....Applicant(s)

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

Court No. - 82

HON'BLE PADAM NARAIN MISHRA, J.

Learned AGA has submitted that accused is on bail and charge has already been framed by trial court on 24.11.2025, therefore, no need to grant interim protection in the matter.

On the request of learned counsel for the applicant, list this case on 13.01.2026 as fresh.

It is made clear that no adjournment will be granted on the next date of listing.

(Padam Narain Mishra,J.)

January 8, 2026

v.k. updh.

Digitally signed by :- VINOD KUMAR UPADHYAY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad