Dismissed¶¶14

Chandrakesh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC5 May 2026NA528/18816/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing application u/s 528 BNSS dismissed; charge-sheet and cognizance/summoning order upheld; extra judicial confession alleged as sole and weak evidence; murder case u/s 103(1) BNS with 61(2)Ka BNS; State contended matter of honour killing fit for trial; liberty to seek discharge before trial court; Allahabad High Court, Vivek Kumar Singh, J., decided May 6, 2026.

What did the court decide?

None; application dismissed, with liberty to move a discharge application before the trial court. ¶¶14

Chandrakesh Vs State of U.P. — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 18816 of 2026

¶3

Chandrakesh	.....Applicant(s)
	Versus
State of U.P.	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: Dhyan Shanker Pandey, Vishal Jaiswal : G.A.

¶4

Court No. - 80

¶5

HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.

¶6

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

¶7

This application has been filed by the applicant to quash the entire proceeding of Session Trial No. 1195 of 2026 (State vs. Chandrakesh and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 136 of 2025, under Sections 61(2)Ka, 103(1) BNS, Police Station Rajpura, District Sambhal as well as order dated 7.8.2025 pending before Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Court No. 1, Moradabad.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the proceeding initiated against the applicant is illegal and against the material available on record; the material of investigation does not disclose commission of any alleged offences against the applicant and as such the proceedings initiated against the applicant including the impugned charge-sheet and cognizance/summoning order are liable to be quashed by this court. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the first information report was lodged by applicant/informant Chandrakesh against five known persons and two unknown persons but they were exonerated in this case and the applicant has been made accused only on the strength of statements of two witnesses, namely, Ratan Singh and Smt. Sushila. Witness Ratan Singh stated that the applicant made extra judicial confession and similar statement was made by Sushila, who happens to be wife of the co-accused Dharmendra. It is further submitted

¶9

NA528 No. 18816 of 2026

¶10

¶11

that there is no evidence in this case except the extra judicial confession. The evidence of extra judicial confession is a very weak evidence and no other evidence was recorded against the applicant except extra judicial confession. Therefore, the proceedings against the applicant be quashed.

¶12

Per contra, learned AGA for the State vehemently opposed the prayer as made in the application and rebutted the stand taken up by learned counsel for applicant by way of submitting that the averments whatsoever has been raised by learned counsel for applicant is subject matter of trial and submitted that after considering the material available on record, charge-sheet has been submitted against the applicant upon which learned court concerned has rightly taken cognizance and summoned the applicant. It is further submitted that extra judicial confession was made by the applicant and the charge may be framed on strong suspicion. In this matter, the applicant Chandrakesh lodged the first information report against several other persons and this is a matter of honour killing, where death penalty may be awarded by the trial court if the convincing evidence is adduced. There are sufficient evidence to proceed against the present applicant.

¶13

After hearing rival submissions extended by learned counsel for the parties and by bare perusal of record, there appears to be no illegality and impropriety in the impugned charge-sheet and cognizance/summoning order and as such learned court concerned has rightly proceeded against the applicant and this Court cannot appreciate the evidence at this stage.

¶14

In view thereof, the instant application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.

¶15

It is open that the applicant may move discharge application before the trial court, who shall pass order in accordance with law.

¶16

(Vivek Kumar Singh,J.)

¶17

May 6, 2026 A.P. Pandey

¶18

Digitally signed by :- ANAND PRAKASH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Chandrakesh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrakesh v. State of U.P.

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

Ajay Mohan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Divyansh Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jitendra @ Lukka @ Lukka Don Vs State of U.P.

Anas and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Imran Ali and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Bajrang Lal Dubey and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another