Dismissed¶30

Baba @ Baburam v. State of U.P. and 7 Others

Allahabad HC22 Apr 2026NA528/42495/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court; Achal Sachdev, J.; APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. 42495 of 2025; quashing of remand order; Special Judge (SC/ST Act) Rampur; Criminal Revision No.56 of 2025; Complaint Case No.139 of 2022; sections 156(3), 200, 202 Cr.P.C.; sections 323, 504, 506 IPC; summoning order dated 27.10.2023 set aside; matter remanded for fresh decision; no interference warranted; abuse of process by complainant bypassing trial court; exemplary cost Rs.10,000/-; decided April 23, 2026.

What did the court decide?

None; application dismissed with exemplary cost of Rs.10,000/- imposed on the applicant. ¶30

Baba @ Baburam Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; application dismissed with exemplary cost of Rs.10,000/- imposed on the applicant.

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 11.09.2025 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Rampur in Criminal Revision No.56 of 2025, remanding the complaint to the trial court after setting aside the summoning order, warrants interference by the High Court under section 528 BNSS.

¶28

Court's answer

The applicant/complainant had every opportunity to re-argue the matter before the trial court after remand, but instead of availing that opportunity directly approached the High Court under section 528 BNSS, thereby himself committing an abuse of the process of law and disregarding the remedy already provided to him.

¶28

Ratio / Principle

The impugned remand order does not constitute abuse of the process of the court; the revisional court followed the procedural aspects incorporated in the Cr.P.C./BNSS and there is no apparent evidence of any error, therefore interference by this Court is unwarranted and the application is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost.

¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court dismisses an application under section 528 BNSS filed by the complainant (Baba @ Baburam) seeking quashing of the order dated 11.09.2025 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Rampur in Criminal Revision No.56 of 2025 (Bharat Singh & Others Vs. State of U.P. & Another), whereby the revision against the summoning order dated 27.10.2023 in Complaint Case No.139 of 2022 (under sections 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Bhot, Rampur) was allowed, the summoning order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the trial court for fresh decision. Held: the remand order did not constitute abuse of the process of the court; the revisional court had followed the procedural aspects under the Cr.P.C./BNSS and committed no apparent error. The complainant, having failed to avail the opportunity to re-argue the matter before the trial court as directed, abused the process of law by directly approaching the High Court. Application dismissed with exemplary cost of Rs.10,000/- (Achal Sachdev, J.).

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 42495 of 2025

Baba @ Baburam

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 7 Others

¶7

	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Shaili Ganguly
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A., Mohd. Irfan
Court No.- 81

¶8

HON'BLE ACHAL SACHDEV, J.

¶9

Learned counsel for opposite party nos.2 to 8 and learned AGA for the State are present.

¶10

None appeared to press this application on behalf of the applicant, today in the Court, even in the revised call.

¶11

This application u/s 528 BNSS has been preferred by the applicant with prayer to quash the order dated 11.09.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge(SC/ST Act), Rampur, in Criminal Revision No.56 of 2025(Bharat Singh & Others Vs. State of U.P. & Another), under sections 323, 504, 506, IPC, Police Station Bhot, District Rampur, whereby the revision moved by the opposite party nos.2 to 8 against the summoning order dated 27.10.2023, passed by learned Civil Judge(Junior Division)/FTC, Rampur, in Complaint Case No.139 of 2022(Baba @ Baburam Vs. Dinesh and Others) was allowed and set-aside the summoning order dated 27.10.2023 and remanded the matter to the trial court to decide the matter afresh in the light of the observation made by the revisional court, in its impugned order dated 11.09.2025.

¶12

Learned counsel for the opposite party nos.2 to 8 submitted that the applicant in the present application is the complainant of Complaint Case No.139 of 2022(Baba @ Baburam Vs. Dinesh and Others), under sections 323, 504, 506, IPC, Police Station Bhot, District Rampur. The present

¶13

NA528 No. 42495 of 2025

¶14

¶15

application has been moved before this Court by the applicant/complainant after being aggrieved by order dated 11.09.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Rampur, in Criminal Revision No.56 of 2025(Bharat Singh & Others Vs. State of U.P. & Another), under sections 323, 504, 506, IPC, Police Station Bhot, District Rampur, by which the learned revisional court allowed the revision filed by the opposite party no.2 to 8 against the summoning order dated 27.10.2023, passed by learned Civil Judge(Junior Division)/FTC, Rampur, in Complaint Case No.139 of 2022(Baba @ Baburam Vs. Dinesh and Others) and set-aside the summoning order dated 27.10.2023 and remanded the matter to the trial court to decide the matter afresh in the light of the observation made by the revisional court in its impugned order dated 11.09.2025, hence present application is maintainable.

¶16

Perusal of record shows that, an application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed by the applicant/complainant before the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Rampur on 17.06.2022, which was subsequently registered as Complaint Case No.139 of 2022(Baba @ Baburam Vs. Dinesh and Others). Thereafter, as per the direction of the trial court, statements of the applicant/complainant as well as the witnesses were recorded under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., respectively and on the basis of the said statements learned trial court summoned the opposite party no.2 to 7 vide order dated 27.10.2023 as an accused to face trial, on the ground that there is prosecutable evidence against the said accused persons.

¶17

Being aggrieved with the order dated 27.10.2023 passed by the trial court, the opposite party nos.2 to 8 preferred the revision before the revisional court i.e. learned Special Judge(SC/ST) Act, Rampur, which was registered as Criminal Revision No.56 of 2025(Bharat Singh & Others Vs. State of U.P. & Another), under sections 323, 504, 506, IPC, Police Station Bhot, District Rampur, and the same was allowed by the learned revisional court and the matter was remanded to the trial court concerned to decide the

¶18

NA528 No. 42495 of 2025

¶19

¶20

matter afresh in the light of the observation made by the revisional court in its impugned order dated 11.09.2025.

¶21

Learned AGA for the State as well as learned counsel for the opposite party nos.2 to 8 have opposed the prayer made in the present application and submitted that the learned revisional court has rightly passed the impugned order dated 11.09.2025 by setting-aside the order dated 27.10.2023 passed by the trial court, on the ground that the material available on record shows that that the order dated 27.10.2023 of trial was erroneous and incorrect and thereby required the interference of the revisional court and remanded the matter to the trial court with the direction to pass a fresh order in view of the opinion expressed by the revisional court in its order dated 11.09.2025. Hence, no interference is required by this Court also and the application is liable to be dismissed.

¶22

Heard Mohd. Irfan, learned counsel for opposite party nos.2 to 8, Sri Jhamman Ram, learned AGA for the State and perused the material brought on record.

¶23

The relevant portion of the impugned order dated 11.09.2025, which is under challenge is being reproduced herein below:-

¶24

"िवद्वान अवर न्यायालय को िनदेिशत िकया जाता है िक इस िनणर्य में व्यक्त िकये गये मत के आलोक में, पुन सुनकर तथा पत्रावली पर उपलब्ध साक्ष्य के सम्यक पिरशीलन के उपरान्त, नवीन आदेश पािरत करना सुिनिश्चत करें।"

¶25

Perusal of the aforesaid direction that has been made by the learned revisional court in its order dated 11.09.2025, it is quite apparent that the learned revisional court has remanded the matter to the trial court after setting aside the summoning order dated 27.10.2023 passed by the learned trial court, by which the opposite party nos.2 to 8, in the present application, have been summoned to face trial, as an accused. The applicant in the present case, who is also the complainant before the trial court had every opportunity to argue the matter before the trial court, as the matter has been remanded to the trial court, however, instead of availing the opportunity to

¶26

NA528 No. 42495 of 2025

¶27

¶28

re-argue the matter before the trial court, as directed vide impugned order dated 11.09.2025, the applicant/complainant has approached this Court, seeking interference by this Court, under section 528 BNSS, with a prayer to set-aside the order dated 11.09.2025, passed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Rampur, in Criminal Revision No.56 of 2025(Bharat Singh & Others Vs. State of U.P. & Another), under sections 323, 504, 506, IPC, Police Station Bhot, District Rampur. The order dated 11.09.2025 itself shows that the matter has sub-judice before the learned trial court and no final order has been passed by the learned revisional court. Despite the fact, that the matter has been remanded to the learned trial court with direction for re-hearing the matter afresh, the applicant/complainant did not approach the trial court, in compliance of the order of revisional court rather directly approached this Court, seeking direction to set-aside the order of remand passed by the revisional court, he himself committed an abuse of process of law disregarding the remedy that has already been provided to the applicant.

¶29

In the aforesaid circumstances, the impugned order does not constitute the abuse of the process of the court. The order of the revisional court is followed by the procedural aspects as incorporated in the Cr.P.C./BNSS and there is no apparent evidence, which shows that the revisional court has committed any error or abuse of the process of the court, therefore, the interference of this Court in the present case is unwarranted and thus the present application is liable to be dismissed with an exemplary cost of Rs.10,000/-.

¶30

Accordingly, the present application U/s 528 Cr.P.C. moved by the applicant is hereby dismissed , with the cost of Rs.10,000/-

¶31

April 23, 2026 VKG

¶32

(Achal Sachdev,J.)

¶33

Digitally signed by :- VIJAY KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Baba @ Baburam v. State of U.P. and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baba @ Baburam v. State of U.P. and 7 Others

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

Pankaj vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Chintu @ Chintu Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Rinki and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Mayya @ Prem Kumari and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kallu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Bala Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others