Abdul Sattar And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another
- Neutral2026:AHC:106015
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an application seeks quashing of criminal proceedings on the ground that no offence is made out against the accused, the High Court will not exercise its power to quash if the material on record shows that an offence is disclosed, as adjudication of disputed questions of fact at that stage is not appropriate; the High Court's power to quash proceedings is exercised only where there has been failure of justice or abuse of procedure. Where a criminal application is filed and the accused are not on bail, if the accused appear or surrender through counsel before the Trial Court and make an application for bail within 45 days, the Trial Court shall consider and dispose of the bail application expeditiously after giving opportunity to the other side. Where an accused moves an application for discharge at an appropriate stage through counsel within 45 days of the High Court's order, the Trial Court shall dispose of the discharge application by a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law within two weeks thereafter. For a period of 45 days or until the disposal of a discharge application, whichever is earlier, no coercive measures shall be taken against the accused.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
1. Rejoinder affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicants is taken on record.
2. Heard Mr. Pradip Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Sunil Vashisth, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
3. The present application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed with a prayer to allow this application and quash/set-aside the entire proceeding of the impugned Case No. 102078 of 2025, under Sections 85, 115 (2), 351(3), 352, 74 BNS & 3/4 D.P. Act P.S.-Mahila Thana, District-Kanpur Nagar, State of U.P. Vs Mohd. Shoyeb and others arising out of Case Crime No. 19 of 2025 as well as Summoning order dated 18.08.2025 passed by court of learned Civil Judge (J.D.)/FTC (CAW), Kanpur Nagar by which court below summoned the applicant no. 1 U/S 85,115 (2), 351(3), 352, 74 BNSS & 3/4 D.P. Act, Applicant nos.2 to 4 were summoned U/S 85, 115 (2), 351(3), 352 BNS & 4 D.P. Act and applicant no. 5 has summoned U/S 85, 351 (3), 352 BNSS, for trial of the case.
4. From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case, at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court. Only in cases where the Court finds that there has been failure of justice or abuse of procedure, this power may be exercised to prevent the abuse of process to secure the ends of justice.
5. Accordingly, prayer for quashing is declined.
6. In case, the applicants are not on bail, it is directed that if the applicants appear or surrender through counsel before the Trial Court and make an application for bail within 45 days from the date of the order, the same shall be considered and disposed of expeditiously, after giving opportunity to the other side.
7. However, in the interest of justice, it is further provided that in case the applicants move an application for discharge at an appropriate stage through counsel within 45 days, the same shall be disposed of by the Trial Court by a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law within two weeks thereafter.
8. For a period of 45 days or till the disposal of the discharge application, whichever is earlier, no coercive measures shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case.
9. With the aforesaid direction, this application is disposed of.
(Nand Prabha Shukla,J.)
May 7, 2026
Shivani Sri.
Connected matters
Decided by the same order
- Pushpendra vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others7 May 2026
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free