Allowed¶17

Jyoti and 4 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC5 Feb 2026NA528/396/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Set-aside/quashing of summoning order via Section 528 BNSS application; transition from Cr.P.C. (Sections 200, 202) to Section 223 BNSS procedure for complaints arising after 01.07.2024; mandatory hearing of proposed accused before issuance of summons; Complaint Case No.2652 of 2025, A.C.J.M. Sitapur; offences under Sections 379 and 506 IPC; remand with eight-week timeline; single-judge coram Brij Raj Singh, J.; decision dated February 5, 2026.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 528 BNSS allowed; impugned summoning order dated 01.08.2025 of the Additional Civil Judge (S.D.), Court No.2/A.C.J.M., Sitapur in Complaint Case No.2652 of 2025 set aside; matter remanded for a fresh decision per due procedure within eight weeks of production of a certified copy of the order. ¶17

Jyoti and 4 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether the summoning order dated 01.08.2025 is sustainable, given that the cause of action and the filing of the complaint occurred after the enforcement of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (01.07.2024), so that the procedure under Section 223 BNSS and a hearing of the proposed accused were required.

¶12

Court's answer

Since the incident date (12.08.2024) and the complaint filing (06.09.2024) fall after the enforcement of the BNSS 2023, the trial court ought to have adopted the procedure provided under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 rather than the Cr.P.C. procedure.

¶16

Ratio / Principle

It was incumbent upon the trial court to hear the applicants and the proposed accused prior to passing the summoning order dated 01.08.2025; that hearing was lacking, so the impugned order deserved to be set aside.

¶16

Key takeaways

The matter is remanded to the court concerned, which must take a fresh decision after following the due procedure in accordance with law within eight weeks from production of a certified copy of the order.ratio¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Brij Raj Singh, J. — Application under Section 528 BNSS (No. 396 of 2026) allowed. The summoning order dated 01.08.2025 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (S.D.), Court No.2/A.C.J.M., Sitapur in Complaint Case No.2652 of 2025 (trial under Sections 379 and 506 IPC) is set aside. Because the incident (12.08.2024) and the complaint (filed 06.09.2024) post-date the enforcement of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (01.07.2024), the trial court ought to have followed the procedure under Section 223 BNSS and was bound to hear the applicants/proposed accused before issuing summons, which it failed to do. Matter remanded for a fresh decision per due procedure within eight weeks of production of a certified copy of the order.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 396 of 2026

Jyoti and 4 others

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and another

¶7

.....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Madan Gopal Tripathi, Atma Ram Verma Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Court No. - 16

¶8

HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and the learned AGA appearing for the State-opposite party no.1.

¶10

The present application has been filed seeking setting aside the order dated 01.08.2025 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (S.D.), Court No.2/A.C.J.M., Sitapur in Complaint Case No.2652 of 2025, whereby the applicants have been summoned to face trial under Sections 379 and 506 IPC.

¶11

In view of the order propped to be passed, issuance of notice to opposite party no.2 is dispensed with.

¶12

Counsel for the applicants submits that the date of incident as mentioned in the complaint is 12.08.2024 and the complaint has been filed on 06.9.2024. The trial court after recording the statements under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and applying its mind has issued summons against the applicants. Counsel for the applicants submits that the entire cause of action as well as filing of the complaint has been done after the enforcement of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 i.e. 01.07.2024, therefore it appears that the impugned order is not sustainable.

¶13

After going through the record, I find that the incident date as mentioned in the complaint is 12.08.2024 and the complaint has been

¶14

NA528 No. 396 of 2026

¶15

¶16

filed on 06.09.2024, therefore, the trial court ought to have been adopted the procedure provided under Section 223 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. It was also incumbent upon the trial court to hear the applicants and the proposed accused prior to passing of the impugned order dated 01.08.2025, which lacks in this case. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.

¶17

Application is accordingly allowed and the impugned order dated 01.08.2025 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (S.D.), Court No.2/A.C.J.M., Sitapur in Complaint Case No.2652 of 2025 is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded to the court concerned with a direction that it shall take a fresh decision after following the due procedure in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

¶18

(Brij Raj Singh,J.)

¶19

February 5, 2026

¶20

Rao/-

¶21

Digitally signed by :- CHEBROLU SRINIVASA RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Jyoti and 4 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jyoti and 4 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. 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

Similar cases

Pawan Kumar Pandey (Pawan Pandey ) vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 2 Others

Hari Prasad Maurya vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Rama Shankar Ram and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Sunil Prasad and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Ministry of Home Affairs Lko. and Another

Jitendra Kumar and 4 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Bharat Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 4 Others