Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Mohd. Shamim vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. ...

Allahabad High Court7 May 2026

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

Where an accused person seeks to move a discharge application under the Criminal Procedure Code rather than proceed with a criminal appeal challenging a summoning order, the court may permit the accused to file such discharge application within a specified period (here, four weeks), and during that period and pending the hearing and decision of the discharge application, no coercive steps shall be taken against the accused. If the accused fails to file the discharge application within the stipulated period, the benefit of the stay of coercive action shall be withdrawn. Any discharge application filed shall be heard and decided expeditiously by a reasoned and speaking order after hearing the parties in accordance with law.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCHNeutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC-LKO:33570HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABADLUCKNOWCRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1306 of 2026Mohd. Shamim.....Appellant(s)VersusState Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another.....Respondent(s)Counsel for Appellant(s):Sheo Prakash Singh, Mohd. RaisCounsel for Respondent(s):G.A.Court No. - 27HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, J.

Instant Criminal Appeal under section 14 A (1) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes Act has been filed to quash the summoning order dated 15.10.2022, passed by learned special Judge SC/ST Act Faizabad, in Special Sessions Trial No.131/2022 (State versus Shamim and Others), arising out of case crime no.301/2021, under sections ? 147, 323, 325, 435, 452, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3 (2) Va of SC/ST Act related to police station ? Khandasa, District ? Ayodhya by which appellant has been summoned and entire proceedings arising out of the same and also to quash the charge sheet dated 13.12.2021

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that co-accused persons except the appellant had moved an application under section 482 CrPC No.11047 of 2024 (Irfan alias Mohammad Irfan and six others vs. State of U.P. and Another) against a charge sheet and impugned summoning order passed in present case in which this Court acting on prayer of applicants while disposing of the said application permitted the applicants to move their discharge application through counsel within four weeks from the date of order dated 09.12.2024 and with the direction that in case if any such application(s) are being filed same shall be heard and decided expeditiously after hearing the parties in accordance with law by means of reasoned and speaking order.

Till the aforesaid period of four weeks and during pendency of discharge application no coercive steps shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case.

In case of failure on the part of the applicants in moving discharge application (s) within aforesaid period, they will not be entitled to the benefit of this order.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that at this stage the appellant- accused is not inclined to press criminal appeal and he seeks indulgence of the Court to cause some order in the light of the aforesaid order passed by this Hon'ble Court in application under Section 482 CrPC filed by the co-accused persons against same impugned order with some interim direction as granted to the co accused persons in the aforesaid manner.

Learned A.G.A. raised no objection to the above prayer made by the learned counsel for the appellant.

In view of the above, it is provided that appellant ? applicant is permitted to move their discharge application through counsel within four weeks' from today and in case any such application is being filed, same shall be heard and decided expeditiously after hearing the parties, in accordance with law, by means of a reasoned and speaking order.

Till the aforesaid period of four weeks' and during pendency of discharge application, no coercive steps shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case.

In case of failure on the part of the appellant - applicant in moving the discharge application within the aforesaid period, they will not be entitled to the benefit of this order.

With above directions, this application stands disposed of.

(Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.)

May 7, 2026

mks

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