Ramesh @ Golu And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another
- Neutral2026:AHC:106390
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an application to quash criminal proceedings is filed at an early stage and the material on record discloses that an offence is prima facie made out against the applicants, the power to quash proceedings under Section 528 BNSS should not be exercised, as disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated upon by the High Court at that stage. The power to quash should be reserved only for cases where there has been a failure of justice or abuse of procedure to prevent abuse of the process of law.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
HON'BLE NAND PRABHA SHUKLA, J. 1. Heard Mr. Sudhakar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Prashant Mishra holding brief of Mr. Abhinav Trivedi, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. The present application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed with a prayer to quash the entire proceeding of Case No. 22414 of 2024 (State v. Ramesh @ Golu and Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 164 of 2024 under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 354-A, 427 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S.-Rura, District-Rampur Dehat as well as impugned cognizance/summoning order dated 04.10.2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) FTC/CAW, Kanpur Dehat.
3. 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.
4. Accordingly, prayer for quashing is declined.
5. 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 makes 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. With the aforesaid direction, this application is disposed of.
(Nand Prabha Shukla,J.)
May 7, 2026
Aditya Tripathi
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