Dismissed¶27

Anil Kumar Baranwal and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC4 May 2026NA528/26805/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 528 BNSS; quashing of summoning order; protest petition treated as complaint; final report dated 07.08.2022; FIR 07.07.2022; Sections 200/202 Cr.P.C. enquiry; simple injuries; three injured medically examined; counterblast FIR; malafides not examinable at quashing stage; SC/ST Act Section 3(1)(da); Complaint Case No. 0080 of 2024; Special Judge SC/ST Act Mau; Allahabad High Court; Samit Gopal J.; Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Aryan Singh AIR 2023 SC 1987; State of M.P. v. Awadh Kishore Gupta (2004) 1 SCC 691; petition rejected; interim order vacated.

What did the court decide?

The order summoning the applicants does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity; this is not a fit case for interference, and the petition under Section 528 BNSS is rejected. ¶26

Anil Kumar Baranwal and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the summoning order dated 07.03.2025 and the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 0080 of 2024 (Seema Sonkar Vs. Anil Kumar Baranwal and others), pending before the Special Judge SC/ST Act, Mau, ought to be set aside and further proceedings stayed under Section 528 BNSS. +2 more

¶14

Court's answer

The order summoning the applicants does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity; this is not a fit case for interference, and the petition under Section 528 BNSS is rejected.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

The summoning order is valid: on its perusal the trial court considered the material on record and recorded its finding as required before summoning the accused; there is no irregularity or illegality in it.

¶25

Key takeaways

Alleged malafides cannot be looked into at the stage of quashing, in view of the Apex Court judgments in Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Aryan Singh (AIR 2023 SC 1987) and State of M.P. v. Awadh Kishore Gupta ((2004) 1 SCC 691).ratio¶25
Since three persons were injured and medically examined, merely looking to the (simple) nature of the injuries cannot lead to the conclusion that the prosecution case is fabricated.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Samit Gopal, J.) rejected an application under Section 528 BNSS seeking setting aside of the summoning order dated 07.03.2025 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Mau in Complaint Case No. 0080 of 2024 (Seema Sonkar Vs. Anil Kumar Baranwal and others), arising from a protest petition against a final report dated 07.08.2022 on FIR dated 07.07.2022 under Sections 34, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(da) SC/ST Act, wherein statements were recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. Held: (i) three injured persons were medically examined and the mere fact that their injuries were simple does not show the case to be fabricated; (ii) alleged malafides/counterblast cannot be examined at the stage of quashing, relying on Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Aryan Singh, AIR 2023 SC 1987 and State of M.P. v. Awadh Kishore Gupta, (2004) 1 SCC 691; (iii) the summoning court considered the material on record and recorded its finding as required, so the order suffered from no illegality or irregularity. Petition rejected; interim order, if any, vacated; Registrar (Compliance) directed to communicate the order to the trial court forthwith.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 26805 of 2025

¶3

Anil Kumar Baranwal And Another

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of U.P. and Another

¶7

.....Opposite Party(s)

¶8

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Hari Keshav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶9

Court No. - 75

¶10

HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.

¶11

1. List revised.

¶12

Heard Sri Hari Keshav, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Devendra Nath Mishra, learned counsel for the State and perused the records.

¶13

A compliance affidavit dated 19.08.2025 of the State is on record in which para 3 it is averred that notice of the present petition has been served on the complainant, the proof of service of notice is annexed as annexure 1 to the same. Despite service of notice no one appears on behalf of the opposite party no.2 even in the revised list.

¶14

The present application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed by the applicants Anil Kumar Baranwal and Aashish Kumar Baranwal , with the prayers to set aside the summoning order dated 07.03.2025 and entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 0080 of 2024 (Seema Sonkar Vs. Anil Kumar Baranwal and others), under Sections 323, 427, 504, 506 IPC and 3(1)(da) SC/St Act, P.S. Muhammadabad Gohna, District Mau, pending in the court of Special Judge SC/ST Act, Mau and with a further prayer to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid case, during the pendency of the present application.

¶15

The facts of the case are that a First Information Report was lodged on 07.07.2022 under Sections 34, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(da) SC/ST Act by opposite party no.2/Seema Sonkar against the applicants and three other persons which was investigated and a final report dated 07.08.2022 was submitted in favour of the accused. The informant then filed a protest petition dated 01.08.2023 with the prayer that the final report dated 07.08.2022 be rejected and the accused be summoned to face trial. The court concerned treated the same as a complaint and proceeded for enquiry in which the statement of the informant/complainant/Seema Sonkar was recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. on 10.09.2024 and that of

¶16

NA528 No. 26805 of 2025

¶17

¶18

her witnesses Sugreev and Mohd. Sajid as PW-1 and PW-2 respectively were recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The court of the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, District Mau vide judgment and order dated 07.03.2025 summoned the applicants for offences under Sections 323, 427, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)Da SC/ST Act to face trial. The present application under Section 528 BNSS has thus been filed with the prayers as aforesaid.

¶19

In the present matter, three persons namely Seema Sonkar, Indal and Vedeshi have received injuries and were medically examined under the orders of the District Magistrate and CMO concerned dated 21.06.2022. The medical reports are annexure 9 to the affidavit in support of the application U/s 528 BNSS.

¶20

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the entire prosecution story is fabricated and fallacious. It is further submitted while placing para 5, 6 and 7 of the affidavit that the applicant no.2 had lodged an FIR on 30.04.2022 against the opposite party no.2 and others in which he had received injuries and were medically examined after which its investigation concluded and a charge sheet was submitted against the opposite party no.2 and other persons and thus counterblast to the said case the present FIR has been lodged on 07.07.2022. It is submitted that the injuries of the three injured are simple in nature and thus a conclusion can be drawn that they are fabricated and false. It is further submitted that the summoning order is a non speaking order and after consideration the prosecution case, the court concerned has not given its finding and satisfaction but has summoned the applicants. It is further submitted that the applicant no.1 is a senior citizen and thus his participation in the matter cannot be sought out. It is further submitted that the protest petition has been filed after one year after filing of the final report inasmuch as the FIR is dated 07.07.2022 after which the protest petition was filed on 01.08.2023 which is afterthought just in order to falsely implicate and harass the applicants. It is further submitted that the petition be thus allowed.

¶21

Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for quashing.

¶22

After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that subsequent to lodging of an FIR, the matter was investigated and final report was submitted. A protest petition was filed which was treated as a complaint and enquiry was done by the trial court concerned. Subsequently the applicants have been summoned vide order dated 07.03.2024. The proceedings and the summoning order are under challenge before this Court. In the present mater, three persons have received injures and have been medically examined. The fact thus remains that there are three injured and merely looking to the nature of injuries cannot be drawn that the same are fabricated. Further, in so far as

¶23

NA528 No. 26805 of 2025

¶24

¶25

the malafides are concerned, the same cannot be looked at the stage for quashing in view of the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Aryan Singh etc. : AIR 2023 SC 1987 and State of M.P. v. Awadh Kishore Gupta : (2004) 1 SCC 691 . The perusal of the summoning order shows that the court has considered the material on record and also recorded its finding as required and then summoned the accused. There is no irregularity and illegality in the same.

¶26

In view of the same, looking to the facts of the case, the order summoning the applicants does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity. This Court does not find to be a fit case for interference.

¶27

The present petition thus stands rejected.

¶28

Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

¶29

Registrar (Compliance) to communicate this order to the concerned trial court forthwith.

¶30

(Samit Gopal,J.)

¶31

May 5, 2026 M. ARIF

¶32

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Anil Kumar Baranwal and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar Baranwal and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rizwan vs State of U.P. and Another

Muskan Khan and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shakeel @ Shakeel Ahmad and 6 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Rahul Yadav and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Premchand Maurya Vs State of U.P through Its Principal Secretary (Home) and Another

Rajpal Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another