Partly allowed

Rambhagat Yadav @ Shriram Yadav and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC15 Sept 2026NA528/25938/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court quashed the chargesheet, cognizance order, and entire criminal proceedings against applicant no. 3 Ashish Yadav, finding only vague allegations without specific role or credible evidence, and noting his career in Agniveer training. The court refused to quash proceedings against applicants nos. 1 and 2 Rambhagat Yadav and Abhishek Yadav, directing them to appear before the trial court within three weeks with interim protection from coercive action.

What did the court decide?

Chargesheet, cognizance order, and entire criminal proceedings quashed in respect of applicant no. 3 Ashish Yadav; application refused for applicants nos. 1 and 2 who must appear before trial court within three weeks with interim protection from coercive action.

Rambhagat Yadav @ Shriram Yadav and 2 Others Vs State of… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2026)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 25938 of 2026

¶3

Rambhagat Yadav @ Shriram Yadav And 2 Others

¶4

	Versus	.....Applicant(s)
State of U.P. and Another		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)		: Manoj Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)		: Amit Singh, G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 79

¶6

HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for parties.

¶8

Present application has been preferred with the prayer to quash the chargesheet dated 31.3.2024 and cognizance/summoning order dated 26.11.2024 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ballia along with entire criminal proceedings of Case No. 26364 of 2024 (State Vs. Ram Bhagat Yadav and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 66 of 2024, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S.- Nagra, District Ballia.

¶9

Learned counsel for applicants argued that applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case by opposite party no.2 only to harass them, whereas by bare perusal of the narration made in the FIR, there is hardly any allegation levelled against applicants upon which trial can proceed. Allegation in the FIR is that during fixing of an electric pole in plot pertaining to opposite party no. 2, applicants along with other co-accused persons resisted it and they have beaten opposite party no. 2 and extended death threat to her. In the aforesaid incident applicants have also received grievous injuries. During course of investigation, no credible evidence has been collected against the applicants. Applicant no.3 has been selected in Agniveer (Arm Forces) and has joined his duties on 12.11.2025 and his training is ongoing. Learned counsel for applicants has further submitted that the present criminal proceeding is abuse of process of law. Learned counsel for applicants further submitted that if there is hardly any allegation levelled against applicants then under which circumstance, the concerned Investigating Officer submitted chargesheet against them

¶10

NA528 No. 25938 of 2026

¶11

¶12

whereupon without applying its judicial mind, learned court concerned took cognizance of offence over the said chargesheet which is bad in the eye of law and as such, same may be quashed.

¶13

Per contra, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer as made in the application by way of submitting that the contentions, which are sought to be raised on behalf of applicants, would relate to disputed questions of fact, and would involve appreciation of evidence.

¶14

After hearing rival submissions extended by learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records this Court finds that so far as applicant no. 3 namely Ashish Yadav is concerned, only general and vague allegations have been levelled against him and also no credible evidence has been collected during course of investigation for warranting his implication in the present case. Moreover, considering the fact that applicant no. 3 is a meritorious student and is under training in Agniveer (Arm Forces), this Court observes that merely on basis of vague allegations and without any specific role assigned to applicant no. 3, continuance of trial proceedings against him not only would amount to abuse of process of law but also will ruin his entire career.

¶15

In view of aforesaid discussions, entire proceeding of Case No. 26364 of 2024 (State Vs. Ram Bhagat Yadav and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 66 of 2024, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S.- Nagra, District Ballia including charge sheet dated 31.3.2024 and cognizance order dated 26.11.2024 are hereby quashed and set aside only in respect of applicant no. 3 namely Ashish Yadav.

¶16

So far as rest of the applicant nos. 1 and 2 namely Rambhagat Yadav @ Shriram Yadav and Abhishek Yadav respectively are concerned, on perusal of the narration of FIR as well as impugned order and chargesheet, this Court does not find it to be a case where interference of this Court is required. No such ground appears to be available in the present application, on the basis of which, impugned order, chargesheet and entire proceeding, can be set aside in respect of applicant nos. 1 and 2.

¶17

Accordingly, the prayer sought through the instant application, is refused

¶18

NA528 No. 25938 of 2026

¶19

¶20

in respect to applicant nos. 1 and 2 . Applicant nos. 1 and 2 are hereby directed to put their appearance before learned trial court in pursuance to impugned summoning order dated 26.11.2024 within three weeks from today. Till three weeks from today, no coercive action shall be initiated against them.

¶21

The instant application u/s 528 BNSS stands disposed of accordingly.

¶22

(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)

¶23

September 16, 2026

¶24

Shaswat

¶25

Digitally signed by :- SHASWAT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rambhagat Yadav @ Shriram Yadav and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rambhagat Yadav @ Shriram Yadav and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases