Disposed¶16

Mallan Khan v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC6 May 2026NA528/7154/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of summoning order and complaint proceedings under sections 51 & 59(1) Food Safety and Standars Act, 2006 refused; discharge application to be decided within six weeks; interim protection from coercive action till disposal; S. 528 BNSS application disposed of; Allahabad High Court; Mallan Khan v. State of U.P.; Complaint Case No.1341 of 2014; Additional CJM Second, Badaun; Deepak Verma, J.; decision dated May 7, 2026.

What did the court decide?

Quashing refused; liberty to move a discharge application before the court below within three weeks, to be decided in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within six weeks; no coercive action against the applicant till disposal of the discharge application. ¶16

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

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 7154 of 2026

Mallan Khan

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State of U.P.	.....Opposite Party
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Sunil Kumar Tiwari, Vijay Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶7

.....Opposite Party(s)

¶8

Court No. - 74

¶9

HON'BLE DEEPAK VERMA, J.

¶10

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

¶11

The present 528 B.N.S.S. application has been filed to quash the summoning order dated 11.09.2014 as well as entire proceeding of Complaint Case No.1341 of 2014 (State of U.P. vs. Mallan Khan), under sections 51 & 59(1) of Food Safety and Standars Act, 2006, Police Station Kunwar Gaon, District Badaun, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Second, Badaun.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. From perusal of complaint, no offence under alleged section is made out. Applicant has been enlarged on bail and on perusal of order-sheet, it is apparent that the applicant is regularly appearing on date fixed.

¶13

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the submission of applicant's counsel and submitted that prima facie, offence under the alleged sections is made out against the applicant. He further submitted that submission raised by applicant's counsel are disputed question of facts, which cannot be entertained at this stage.

¶14

The prayer for quashing the entire proceedings, summoning order of the aforesaid case against the applicant is, hereby, refused .

¶15

However, if applicant moves discharge application before the concerned court below within three weeks from today, the court below shall decide his application in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of filing of discharge application. Till the disposal of discharge application, no coercive action will be taken against the applicant.

¶16

With the above directions, this 528 B.N.S.S. application is disposed of.

¶17

May 7, 2026 SKD

¶18

(Deepak Verma,J.)

¶19

Digitally signed by :- SURJIT KUMAR DEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mallan Khan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mallan Khan 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

Shiv Kumar Solanki Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pooja Chaddha Vs State of Up and Another

Pooja Chaddha Vs State of Up and Another

Avishek Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Shafique Ahmad vs Nasim Ahmad and 3 Others

Satpal Singh Kashyap vs State of U.P. and Another