Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Criminal Procedure Code

17749 judgments · newest first · showing 1401–1600

FIRM MAJIDversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

The applicant, Firm Majid, filed an application under Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash the criminal proceedings (case No. 1072 of 2015) against it for alleged criminal breach of trust under Section 406 IPC, including a summons order dated 11.07.2016 and a non‑bailable …

PARVEZversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

The appellant, Parvez, appealed against an order dated 4 June 2026 of the Additional Session Judge (Special Judge SC/ST Act) which rejected his application to have certain documents placed on record. The appellant claimed the documents were with the police station and that, under Section 207 of the …

BHAGYA REKHAversusRAKESH KUMAR YADAV

The petitioner, Bhagya Rekha, filed a petition under Article 227 seeking the High Court's intervention to expedite a pending Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code case (maintenance) before the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No.4, Prayagraj, which had been pending since 27 September 2023. The …

FIRASAT ALIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Firasat Ali filed an application under Section 528 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash the charge sheet dated 21‑12‑2025 and the entire criminal proceeding (Case No. 7503 of 2026) arising under Section 3 of the Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, 1984. The applicant alleged …

SITESHversusSTATE OF U.P.

The applicant, Sitesh, was named in an FIR along with six others for alleged murder and related offences under Sections 103(1), 109, 351(3), 3(5) and 61(2). The informant‑witness, who is also the applicant’s brother‑in‑law, claimed that eight unknown persons committed the crime and that the named …

GANGA PRASAD CHAUBEY AND 7 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

The revisionists challenged the Additional Sessions Judge’s order rejecting their discharge application and directing them to appear for framing of charge under Section 302 IPC. They argued that the death certificate and medical reports indicated death due to cardiac‑respiratory failure and …

SHAMIM AHAMADversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

The petitioners filed a criminal revision, 18 days after the prescribed period, seeking to set aside an ex‑parte order dated 16‑05‑2026 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bareilly under Section 144 of the B.N.S.S. The Court first condoned the delay in filing the revision upon …

DURGAWATI AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

The petitioners, Durgawati and her son, filed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution seeking a direction to the Principal Judge of the Family Court, Siddharth Nagar, to decide an application filed under Section 128 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Execution Case No. 835 of 2022) within a …

AKIL AHAMADversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

The applicant, Akil Ahamad, filed an application under Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash an order dated 10 July 2026 passed by the Principal Judge of the Family Court, Rampur, in a criminal miscellaneous case under Section 125(3) CrPC. The applicant had earlier filed a …

SHALU BACHCHAN @ KOMALversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

The revisionist, Shalu Bachchan, filed a criminal revision challenging the Family Court's order dated 09.06.2026 which reduced her interim maintenance from Rs.15,000 to Rs.8,000 per month. She contended that the reduced amount was not commensurate with her husband’s salary of Rs.69,000 and sought a …

ARJUN SIROHIversusSTATE OF U.P.

The High Court considered an anticipatory bail application filed by Arjun Sirohi, a Secretary of a Krishi Mandi Utpadan Samiti, who was alleged to have demanded a bribe of Rs.10,000 in connection with a contract dispute under Sections 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The applicant …

JYOTI PRAKASH DUBEYversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

The applicant, Jyoti Prakash Dubey, filed an application under Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash a summons dated 07-10-2020, the entire criminal proceeding (S.T. No.12/2020) arising from a case registered in 2018 under Sections 354(Ka) and 506 of the IPC and Sections 9 and …

SUJEET KUMAR SHARMAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

The applicant, Sujeet Kumar Sharma, filed an application under Section 528 seeking to quash the charge-sheet dated 7 January 2025 and the cognizance order dated 5 May 2026 in Special Sessions Trial No.334 of 2026, which arose under Sections 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The applicant …

VISHALversusSTATE OF U.P.

Vishal was arrested in connection with the alleged murder of his 70‑year‑old grandmother, with the prosecution alleging that he assaulted her while intoxicated. The applicant contended that the allegations were false, that he was heavily intoxicated at the time, and that the key eyewitnesses—his …

LUCKY KUMAR BHARTIYAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

The applicant, Lucky Kumar Bhartiya, filed an application under Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to set aside the cognizance order dated 12‑07‑2023 and to quash the charge sheet dated 08‑04‑2022 in a case under Section 60(2) of the Excise Act. The court examined the FIR and the …

VISHNU SIKARWAR @ SHISHUPAL SINGH AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

The petitioners, Vishnu Sikarwar and another, filed an application under Section 528 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash a summoning order dated 24‑07‑2024 and the entire criminal proceedings (Complaint No. 16636 of 2023) under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 of the Protection of Women …

MANOJ SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Manoj Singh, the complainant, filed a transfer application seeking to move Bail Application No.4864 of 2026 (Anup Kaushik v. State of U.P.) from the Aligarh District and Sessions Court to another district court, alleging that the opposing party No.2 is a practicing advocate. The applicant relied on …

ANURAG SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

The applicant, Anurag Singh, filed an application under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking to quash the criminal complaint (Case No. 173 of 2010) filed under Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code. He was served notice in January 2011, failed to appear, and a non‑bailable warrant was issued; bail …

AMRINA M FERNANDES @ AMRINA ZAVERIversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

Disposed Off

The Bombay High Court dealt with a group of six writ petitions and one interim application seeking consent quashing of four FIRs and a criminal case arising from a lift‑incident on 19‑Nov‑2025 that resulted in a miscarriage. The petitioners, who were the accused, and the complainants mutually agreed …

INDUS TOWERS LIMITED AND ANRversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

Allowed

The petitioners, Indus Towers Ltd. and an individual, sought to quash FIR No. 37 of 2020 registered under Section 53(7) of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act (MRTP Act) for allegedly unauthorised erection of a telecom tower. The municipal council had issued a 15‑day notice under Section 189 …

SAYYED MOHAMMED ALI ABBASversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.

Disposed Off

The applicant, Sayyed Mohammed Ali Abbas, filed a criminal application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking to quash criminal proceedings (CR No. 829 of 2023) for alleged offences under Section 295-A of the IPC arising from a dispute over a banner removed from a housing society gate. The …

RHYTHM ARVIND GOYALversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Disposed Off

The Bombay High Court heard a group of six writ petitions seeking consent quashing of four FIRs and one criminal case registered between November 2025 and February 2026 involving alleged assault, miscarriage, molestation and extortion. The complainants and accused parties submitted voluntary consent …

TANAY JITENDRA SHAHversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.

Disposed Off

The Bombay High Court heard a group of six writ petitions seeking consent quashing of four FIRs/CRs registered between November 2025 and February 2026 relating to an alleged assault in a lift that resulted in a miscarriage and subsequent extortion claims. The complainants and accused parties …

AMRINA M FERNANDES ALIAS AMRINA ZAVERIversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

Disposed Off

The Bombay High Court heard a group of six writ petitions seeking consent quashing of four FIRs and one criminal case registered between November 2025 and February 2026 involving alleged assault, miscarriage, molestation and extortion. The complainants and accused parties submitted voluntary consent …

SOLI MERWAN CAMAversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

Allowed

The petitioners, whose dispute originated in a civil suit, reconciled and filed consent affidavits seeking to terminate parallel criminal proceedings. The High Court examined its inherent power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (and the analogous Section 528 of the BNSS) to quash the …

VALENTINE FRANSICO SILVEIRAversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Disposed Off

The Bombay High Court dealt with a group of six writ petitions and one interim application seeking consent quashing of four FIRs and a criminal case arising from a lift‑incident on 19‑Nov‑2025 that resulted in a miscarriage. The petitioners, who were the accused, and the complainants mutually agreed …

AMITSINGH RATHOREversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

Allowed

The petitioner, a construction contractor, sought quashing of FIR No. 0328 of 2016 filed under Section 304A IPC for the death of a worker, on the basis of a consent affidavit filed by the victim's father stating that compensation had been paid and that they consented to the dismissal. The High Court …

HEMLATA ADITYA PATKAR @ HEMLATA BANE @BANEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS

Disposed Off

The Bombay High Court heard a group of six writ petitions seeking consent quashing of four FIRs/CRs registered between November 2025 and February 2026 relating to an alleged assault in a lift that resulted in a miscarriage and subsequent extortion claims. The complainants and accused parties …

SANJAY TUKARAM MHASEPATILversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

Allowed

The petition arose from a land transaction dispute concerning a sale deed dated 5 January 2018, which led to the registration of FIR No. 178 of 2025 under several sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The parties amicably settled the civil dispute and executed consent terms on 18 December …

MUKESH BHIMKUMAR PATWAversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Allowed

The petitioners and respondents, who are related family members, were involved in mutual criminal complaints arising from a verbal altercation that led to simple injuries. Both parties subsequently settled their private dispute and jointly requested the High Court to quash the pending criminal …

RAJESH RAMAVTAR TIWARIversusVIJAYA VINOD PATIL and ANR.

Disposed Off

The applicant, Rajesh Ramavtar Tiwari, sought the return of property including a flat key under CrPC s.457, and the JMFC ordered the return on bond. Respondent No.1, Vijaya Vinod Patil, later filed a separate application to have the key deposited with the court, which was rejected, leading her to …

KAMLESH KEDARNATH RAIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS

Allowed

The applicant and the complainant, who are co‑owners of a hotel business, fell out over a Rs 5 lakh hand loan, leading to an FIR for extortion and the registration of a chargesheet under Section 308(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Three days later the complainant filed an affidavit of …

RAVI VINAYAK RAKSHANKARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

Allowed

The applicant filed an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash FIR No. 305/2016 and the charge sheet filed in Sessions Case No. 6/2017 for offences under Sections 376, 406 and 313 of the IPC. Both parties are adults who knew each other, and ten years have …

RAVI RAJAN PANDAYANversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

Allowed

The petition sought quashing of an FIR registered under sections 406, 415, 420 and 467 of the IPC arising from a civil dispute over a leave‑and‑license agreement. The parties had settled the civil matter, returned the premises, and jointly requested the High Court to dismiss the criminal proceedings …

ASHOK KHEMCHAND KOTHARI AND ANRversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

Disposed Off

The applicants, Ashok Khemchand Kothari & ors., were accused in FIR No. 438 of 2024 for offences under Sections 406, 420 and 120B IPC arising from a loan dispute with the complainant, who filed the FIR on behalf of his deceased wife, a licensed money‑lender. The applicants repaid the entire loan …

VIJAY SHRIPAD KALE AND ANR.versusTHE SENIOR INSPECTOR OF POLICE AND ORS.

Disposed Off

The Bombay High Court heard two writ petitions (WP 2324/2026 and WP 2325/2026) filed by Vijay Shripad Kale & others seeking quash of FIRs registered by the Economic Offences Wing, Banking‑2. The disputes arose from a commercial transaction of Rs. 50 crore and a back‑dated loan agreement of Rs. 3.65 …

ATUL HARKISHAN DAS MEHTA AND ANR.versusTHE SENIOR INSPECTOR OF POLICE AND ORS.

Allowed

The Bombay High Court heard two writ petitions (WP 2324/2026 and WP 2325/2026) filed by Vijay Shripad Kale & others seeking quash of FIRs registered by the Economic Offences Wing, Banking‑2. The disputes arose from a commercial transaction of Rs. 50 crore and a back‑dated loan agreement of Rs. 3.65 …

ABHINAV PRANNATH SHARMAversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

Allowed

The applicant and the complainant, both young adults, were involved in a squabble while playing cricket that resulted in injuries, leading to an FIR under IPC sections 307 and 34. Both parties later consented to quash the criminal proceedings, submitting affidavits of consent. The High Court, …

MADHU SHARMA AND ORSversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

Disposed Off

The petitioners and respondents were involved in a civil dispute over Rs.1 crore, which was settled by mutual payment. Both parties filed separate writ petitions seeking quashing of FIR No. 82 of 2025 registered at Marine Drive police station, alleging offences under Sections 316(2), 316(5) and 3(5) …

PRADEEP JANARDHAN NILEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

Disposed Off

The parties, all trustees or former trustees of a trust, were involved in a civil dispute over trust property that was settled through a consent decree in a 2025 civil suit. Following the settlement, the complainants sought to withdraw criminal proceedings initiated under various IPC offences by …

PERCY ERACH PESTONJIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

Disposed Off

The parties, all trustees or former trustees of a trust, were involved in a civil dispute over trust property that was settled through a consent decree in a 2025 civil suit. Following the settlement, the complainants sought to withdraw criminal proceedings initiated under various IPC offences by …

GAURAV CHAVAN AND ANRversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

Allowed

The petitioners, young law graduates, were involved in a scuffle after their examinations, leading to an FIR for simple injury. Both parties later reconciled and filed a consent affidavit seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings. The High Court examined the power under Section 482 of the …

MANISH PATELversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

Allowed

The petitioners and respondents were involved in a civil dispute over Rs.1 crore, which was settled by mutual payment. Both parties filed separate writ petitions seeking quashing of FIR No. 82 of 2025 registered at Marine Drive police station, alleging offences under Sections 316(2), 316(5) and 3(5) …

BRITANNIA DAIRY PRIVATE LIMITEDversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

Allowed

Britannia Dairy Private Limited, a marketer of a cheese product, was charged under the Food Safety and Standards Act for distributing unsafe food after a laboratory report found fungal infestation. The notice and opportunity to appeal under the Act were issued only after the product's shelf‑life had …

SHARAD BABURAO BOTALJE AND ORSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

Disposed Off

The petitioners sought to quash an FIR and criminal prosecution for cheating and breach of trust, alleging that the parties had settled their commercial dispute and filed a consent affidavit. The High Court, invoking its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code and Section …

SACHIN ZUMBAR PATIL @ GAIKWAD AND ORSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

Allowed

The petitioners sought consent quashing of criminal proceedings for cheating and forgery arising from a land transaction. The complainant filed a consent affidavit confirming full repayment and requested the FIR and chargesheet be set aside. The Court, invoking its inherent powers under Section 482 …

VIJAYLAXMI AMIT BALIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

Disposed Off

The petitioner, Vijaylaxmi Amit Bali, sought quashing of two criminal complaints filed by her husband under various sections of the Indian Penal Code. The complaints (CR No.353/2019 and FIR No.470/2021) alleged offences such as cheating, forgery, and criminal conspiracy. The parties reconciled and …

DIGVIJAYSINGH PRAVINSINGH RAJPUTversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Disposed Off

The applicant, Digvijaysingh Pravinsingh Rajput, filed an anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking pre‑arrest bail for alleged offences under Sections 316(4) and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 involving misappropriation of …

RASHMI RAVINDRA JOSHIversusNIRANJAN SATISH OAK

Disposed Off

The appellant mother appealed the Family Court's order that directed her to hand over custody of her 14‑year‑old daughter to the biological father within two months. The parties had divorced by consent in 2017, agreeing that the mother would retain custody until the child attained majority, with …

KESHAV @ KESHUKRIPALDAS CHANDANI AND ORSversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

Disposed Off

The petitioners, neighbours involved in a 2018 dispute over water pipelines, were charged under IPC sections 323, 504, 506, 143 and 149 for rioting and causing hurt. They filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution invoking Section 482 of the CrPC, seeking quash of the FIR (C.R. No. …

RASHMI RAVINDRA JOSHIversusNIRANJAN SATISH OAK

Disposed Off

The appellant mother appealed the Family Court's order that directed her to hand over custody of her 14‑year‑old daughter to the biological father within two months. The parties had divorced by consent in 2017, agreeing that the mother would retain custody until the child attained majority, with …

KRUSHNA MAYA KHELOJIversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Partly Allowed

The appellant, Krushna Maya Kheloji, was convicted of murder (Sec. 302 IPC) and sentenced to life imprisonment. On appeal, the court examined the evidence, primarily the eye‑witness testimony of PW 8, which showed the deceased entered the appellant’s house and was stabbed in a sudden quarrel without …

KRUSHNA MAYA KHELOJIversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Disposed Off

The appellant, Krushna Maya Kheloji, was convicted of murder (Sec. 302 IPC) and sentenced to life imprisonment. On appeal, the court examined the evidence, primarily the eye‑witness testimony of PW 8, which showed the deceased entered the appellant’s house and was stabbed in a sudden quarrel without …

KRISHANPAL CHARANPAL SINGH AND ORSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

Allowed

The applicants were accused of cheating and breach of trust after a monetary dispute, leading to FIR No. 0484 of 2026 under sections 3(5) and 318(4) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita. The parties subsequently reconciled, the complainant received Rs.30 lakhs and a demand draft of Rs.10 lakhs, and …

PRANIT TUKARAM TARPHEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Allowed

The applicant, Pranit Tukaram Tarphe, was arrested in 2020 for murder (IPC s.302) and has been in custody for six years. The trial stalled because the investigating officer failed to appear on twenty occasions, causing a prolonged delay. The applicant suffers from cervical canal stenosis and had …

SUJIT BHANUDAS GHODKE AND ORSversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

Allowed

The applicants, contractors of the complainant, were accused of cheating and breach of trust, leading to an FIR for several offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The parties later entered into a Deed of Compromise, with the complainant affirming receipt of the agreed amounts. The court …

ANKIT HARENDRA KUMAR GOSALIAversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

Allowed

The applicant and the complainant, both bullion traders, settled a commercial dispute involving Rs.6.52 crore and sought to have the criminal proceedings initiated in 2019 quashed by consent. The complainant filed an affidavit of consent, and the court considered the applicability of its inherent …

ARJUN KUNAL KHANNAversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.

Disposed Off

The petitioner, a 19‑year‑old, sought quashing of FIR No. 446 of 2026 filed under sections 115(2), 117(2), 3(5), 351(3) and 352 of the BNS, on the ground that both parties, also 19‑year‑old, had entered into a consent settlement. The Court examined its inherent power under Section 482 of the …

ANAND CHANDRASHEKHARANversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

Allowed

The applicant, Ajay, was convicted for rash and negligent driving that caused injury to the complainant. After the conviction, both parties reached a settlement, the complainant filed a consent affidavit, and the fine and compensation were paid. The applicant filed a criminal application seeking …

SHARIQ FIROZ SHAIKHversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

Disposed Off

The applicant, Shariq Firoz Shaikh, and the complainant, who are married, sought to have criminal proceedings initiated six years earlier under Section 376(2)(n) IPC and related offences quashed. They filed a consent affidavit indicating their desire to settle the matter amicably. The High Court …

NARESH VISHWAMBHAR SHARMA AND ANRversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Allowed

The petitioners challenged the magistrate’s order rejecting their discharge application and the subsequent revision order, contending that the FIR did not disclose any offence of criminal breach of trust or cheating. The court examined the statutory ingredients of Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC, …

ATITHI PATELversusECONOMIC OFFENCE WING AND ANR.

Allowed

The applicants, developers, sought quashing of FIR No. 69/2018 filed by the Economic Offence Wing under Sections 34, 406, 409, 420 IPC and Sections 3, 4, 5, 13 of the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act, arising from a flat‑purchase dispute with a complainant. After investigation, the complainant and …

ERAJ TIRANDAZ FARIDANIversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

Disposed Off

The applicant, charged with trespass, reconciled with the complainant and both sought consent quashing of the criminal proceedings. The High Court, invoking its inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, examined the Bhajan Lal guidelines and …

TANSUKHLAL PANNALAL JAINversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

Partly Allowed

The High Court examined an application under the inherent powers of the court (section 482 CrPC, now section 528 B.N.S. 2023) to quash an order dated 1 October 2016 and the subsequent FIR registered on 7 April 2017 for alleged fraud, forgery and cheating in a land‑development dispute. The magistrate …

VISHAL KALASARIA AND ORSversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Allowed

The petitioners, owners of several ready‑mix concrete plants, challenged FIR No.0287/2025 filed by a Village Revenue Officer alleging illegal operation and pollution under sections 223, 270, 279 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. They contended that the plants possessed all required licences and that, …

BHAVESH DEVENDRA SINGH AND ORSversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

Allowed

A scuffle over ticket sales at Mumbai's Eros Theatre resulted in a petitioner striking a complainant with a stick, causing grievous hurt. All parties, being young adults, later settled the dispute and jointly sought consent quashing of the criminal proceedings. The Court, relying on its inherent …

MONA RAJESH GUPTAversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

Allowed

The petition arose from a familial dispute between a mother‑in‑law and daughter‑in‑law that was amicably resolved, with both parties filing a consent affidavit seeking quashing of FIR No. 107 of 2022 filed under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and IPC …

BADAL MALIRAM MITTAL AND ORS.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

Allowed

The petitioners, whose dispute originated in a civil suit, reconciled and filed consent affidavits seeking to terminate parallel criminal proceedings. The High Court examined its inherent power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (and the analogous Section 528 of the BNSS) to quash the …

VIJAYLAXMI AMIT BALIversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

Allowed

The petitioner, Vijaylaxmi Amit Bali, sought quashing of two criminal complaints filed by her husband under various sections of the Indian Penal Code. The complaints (CR No.353/2019 and FIR No.470/2021) alleged offences such as cheating, forgery, and criminal conspiracy. The parties reconciled and …

SANTOSH @ PINTU RABHAJI DAREKAR AND ANRversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

Disposed Off

The petitioners and the State were involved in a local dispute over territorial supremacy that led to an FIR alleging simple injuries but later described as grievous. Both parties, now seeking a consensual settlement, filed a writ petition to quash the criminal proceedings. The High Court, invoking …

RAMESH RAMCHANDRA KALYANKER AND ANRversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

Disposed Off

The applicants, Ramesh Kalyankar and family, were charged under IPC sections 420 and 34 for allegedly selling a mortgaged property to Sohil Intikhab Alam Hawaldar despite knowing of the mortgage. The parties later reached a settlement and agreed to file a writ petition to quash the FIR, also seeking …

GANESH SHANKAR PARASKARversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.

Dismissed

The appellant, Ganesh Shankar Paraskar, was convicted by the Sessions Court for murder (Sec.302 IPC) and also for offences under Sec.307, Sec.323 and Sec.506 IPC, based primarily on two written dying declarations of his wife and corroborative oral statements of two neighbours. He appealed, …

YASH NENSEE AND ORSversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

Allowed

The petitioners, three young students, were charged under IPC sections 323, 324 and 34 for a simple injury that occurred during a New Year house party, where a mistaken‑identity slap led to a scuffle. They filed a writ petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 …

NILESH DATTATRAYA JEJURARKARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Dismissed

The applicant, a psychiatrist, sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for alleged abetment of suicide under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The prosecution alleged that the applicant harassed his wife, insulted her at a family …

CURSINO JUDE AGNELO CASTELLINOversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

Disposed Off

The petitioners sought consent quashing of FIR No.19/2026 and the accompanying charge‑sheet relating to cheque‑dishonour allegations arising from a land transaction, after the parties reached an amicable settlement. Both applicants filed separate criminal applications before the Bombay High Court, …

MOHAMED ASHFAQ CHAWNIWALAversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

Disposed Off

The petitioner, Mohamed Ashfaq Chawniwala, filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking to have Respondent No.2 impleaded as an accused alongside him in Criminal Case No. 253 of 2016. He contended that he was not responsible for the alleged crime and that Respondent No.2 should also be charged. …

VASANTRAO WAMANRAO MOREYversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.

Allowed

Petitioner Vasantrao Morey, a builder, obtained housing loans totalling Rs 18.75 lakh from Dena Bank (now Bank of Baroda) for five borrowers, allegedly using forged documents. An FIR was lodged under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 420 and 120B of the IPC. The petitioner repaid the entire loan amount, …

HABIBULLA KARIM KHANversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Dismissed

The applicant, convicted of murder under IPC s.302 and sentenced to life imprisonment, filed Criminal Appeal No.186 of 2017. During the appeal he sought to raise a plea of juvenility via Interim Application No.3138 of 2025, which was withdrawn on 18.09.2025 without merits being considered. The …

RAMEEZ SHAUKAT THOBANIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Disposed Off

The petitioners, a landlord and tenant, filed a petition to quash FIR No. 824/2025 alleging cheating and forgery after the tenant failed to vacate premises. The parties later reconciled and settled the related civil suit, with the tenant (respondent No.2) filing a consent affidavit to quash the …

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRAversusRINKUSINGH SHIVBAKAS SINGH

Disposed Off

The State of Maharashtra filed an application for leave to appeal against the acquittal of Navnath Waghmare by the Designated Special Court in a POCSO case where the victim, a minor, alleged rape. The trial court acquitted the accused on the basis that the victim's age was not conclusively proved …

GAUTAM KHANDJUAversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Disposed Off

Navnath Waghmare was engaged to Nafisa Joseph, who demanded proof of his earlier divorce. Waghmare refused to produce the documents, leading to a quarrel witnessed by both families. The next day, Nafisa, in a depressed state, locked herself in a room and committed suicide by hanging. Waghmare was …

RAMAKANT MISHRAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

The applicant, Ramakant Mishra, filed an application under Section 482 of the CrPC seeking to quash a summoning order dated 17‑05‑2022 issued by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) in a complaint alleging offences under Sections 336, 504 and 506 IPC. The applicant contended that the complaint, filed …

DHARMENDRA AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

The applicants Dharmendra and Kunti Devi filed an application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the charge sheet and stay proceedings in a case filed under Sections 420 and 406 of the IPC for alleged cheating. They argued that the offences under Sections 420 and 406 cannot coexist, …

ANKITA SHARMAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Ankita Sharma filed an application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking to quash a summoning order dated 22‑12‑2022 issued by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gorakhpur, in a criminal complaint (Case No. 3978 of 2017) filed by her husband Nitin Sharma alleging offences under various IPC …

SAGAR AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

The applicants filed an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash the charge‑sheet and proceedings in a criminal case arising from a matrimonial dispute, wherein the complainant had filed FIRs alleging offences under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Sections …

MAHESH AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

The applicants filed an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash the summoning order dated 6‑Nov‑2022 and the entire criminal proceedings (Complaint No.1203 of 2021, Meenu Singh v. Mahesh et al.) involving offences under IPC sections 498A, 323, 504 and sections 3 …

MUNNE KHAN AND 3 OTHERSversusState of UP AND ANOTHER

The applicants filed an application under Section 482 of the CrPC seeking quash of criminal proceedings (Case No. 31675 of 2022) arising from offences under Sections 323, 325 and 308 IPC. The parties had reached an amicable settlement outside court, and the compromise was verified by the trial court …

SANTOSHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

Santosh filed a criminal revision before the Allahabad High Court seeking to set aside an ex parte order dated 09‑07‑2025 of the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Azamgarh, which partially granted a maintenance application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. and ordered him to pay Rs.4,000 to …

DHARMENDRA YADAV AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Dismiss

The applicants, Dharmendra Yadav and another, filed a withdrawal application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, stating that the underlying dispute stemmed from a matrimonial conflict between the second respondent and her husband. An FIR had been lodged and a charge‑sheet filed in …

SUNILversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

The appellant Sunil was convicted under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act for allegedly kidnapping and raping a minor girl. The High Court examined extensive inconsistencies in the victim's statements, the testimony of family witnesses, and the lack of documentary …

ARVIND PATERIYA AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

The applicants filed a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash a charge‑sheet and cognizance order in a criminal case arising from a matrimonial dispute, wherein the complainant alleged offences under Sections 498A, 494, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of …

KAPIL SIROHIversusState of U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

The applicant, Kapil Sirohi, filed a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC seeking to quash a maintenance order dated 10 July 2023 passed by the Family Court, Mathura, which directed him to pay interim maintenance to his wife and son. The applicant alleged that the Family Court failed to consider …

AVSHESH PRATAP SINGH ALIAS ABHISHEK PRATAPversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

The applicant, Avshesh Pratap Singh, filed an application under Section 528 of the CrPC seeking quash of criminal proceedings (Case No. 107 of 2025) arising from FIR No. 223 of 2022, which alleged offences under Sections 503, 506 and 153A IPC. The parties had reached an amicable settlement, which …

YOGESH AND 9 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

The applicants, Yogesh and nine others, filed an application under Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash the charge‑sheets and the entire criminal trial (Sessions Trial No. 1221 of 2021) relating to offences under Sections 147, 452, 323, 506, 352 and 304 IPC. The applicants …

SMT. SHASHIKALA CHAUHANversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

The appellant, Smt. Shashikala Chauhan, alleged that Ajay Yadav repeatedly raped and blackmailed her, threatening to release a video. The trial court acquitted Yadav, finding contradictions in the appellant's statements and no corroborative evidence. On appeal, the appellant argued that the trial …

ARUN KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

The applicant, Arun Kumar, filed an application under Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to set aside the order dated 24‑02‑2026 that framed an alternative charge of Section 302 IPC in a case originally involving Sections 498A, 304B IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act. The original FIR …

ONKARESHWAR MISHRA ALIAS KARAN AND 18 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash orders dated 14‑08‑2025 and 12‑05‑2025 and the entire criminal proceeding (Case No. 4266 of 2025) relating to non‑compoundable offences under Sections 318(4), 316(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2) and …

RAJKUMAR AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash the chargesheet dated 10‑04‑2018 and the cognizance order dated 18‑08‑2018 in Criminal Case No.2505 of 2018, which involved offences under Sections 354, 308 and 325 IPC. Both parties had amicably …

SHAUKAT ANSARI AND 6 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the CrPC seeking quash of criminal proceedings, claiming that the dispute had been amicably settled and a compromise was verified by the trial court on 26‑11‑2025. The trial court confirmed the settlement, and the State and the second opposite …

NADEEM AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the CrPC seeking to quash criminal proceedings (Case No. 2497 of 2026) arising from offences under Sections 115(2), 110, 352 and 351(3) of the IPC. Both parties admitted that a compromise had been reached and that the settlement was verified …

MAHADEV @ KAMLESHversusSTATE OF U.P.

Mahadev @ Kamlesh filed an anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (BNSS No. 6714 of 2026) before the Allahabad High Court. The applicant's counsel, Kamal Dev Singh Chanchal, later moved the court seeking to withdraw the application. The court considered the …

BALWANT AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

The Allahabad High Court considered an application under Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash the Sessions Trial No. 231 of 2017, which involved offences under Sections 308, 323, 504 and 506 of the IPC. The applicants had already reached a compromise, which was verified by the trial …

CHANDRA SHEKHAR AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash the criminal proceedings (Sessions Trial No.232 of 2017) relating to offences under Sections 308, 323, 504 and 506 IPC. The parties had amicably settled the dispute and a compromise was verified by …

SMT. MAUSAMversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

Smt. Mausam filed an application to cancel the bail of the accused (opposite party no.2) in a criminal case alleging that the accused was pressurising her to compromise and thereby threatening the trial. The application relied on sections of the BNS Act, the SC/ST Act and the POCSO Act, but no …

SARANSH MANAUT AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

The applicants, Saransh Manaut and another, filed an application under Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash the chargesheet and criminal proceedings initiated under Sections 406 and 506 of the IPC. The dispute between the parties had been amicably settled, a fact verified by …

ZUBAIR AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

The applicants filed a Section 528 CrPC application seeking to quash Criminal Case No. 598 of 2020, which involved offences under Sections 452, 323, 504 and 506 IPC arising from a 2019 crime. The parties had reached an amicable compromise, which was verified by the trial court on 28‑07‑2026 and …

RAMJI GUPTAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 5 OTHERS

The applicant, Ramji Gupta, filed an application under Section 529 of the BNSS seeking a High Court direction that the trial court expedite two pending Sessions Trials (Nos. 577/2024 and 576/2024) involving offences under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 308 and 304 IPC. The State opposed, and the Court …

SMT. MUNNI DEVIversusSTATE OF U.P.

Munni Devi applied for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the CrPC in a case involving offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. Her earlier anticipatory bail application had been rejected, with a direction to appear before the trial court and seek regular bail, which she failed to do. …

VIMAL BAHADUR SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Vimal Bahadur Singh filed a criminal revision challenging an ex‑parte maintenance order of Rs 10,000 per month awarded to Swati Singh, arguing the amount was excessive. The State argued that the appropriate remedy was an application under Section 126(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code or Section …

MOHITversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

The appellant Mohit was convicted under Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act and Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC for allegedly abducting and raping a girl who was claimed to be a minor. On appeal, the defence argued that the victim's age was not conclusively proved, relying on a radiological report …

RAJANversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

The applicant Rajan sought bail in a criminal case (Crime No.158 of 2026) alleging gang rape under Sections 70(2), 351(3) of the B.N.S., Sections 5G/6 of the POCSO Act and Section 67 of the IT Act. The prosecution alleged that the co‑accused Manish lured the victim to a field where Rajan and Vikas …

TAUQEERversusSTATE OF U.P.

The Allahabad High Court considered the third bail application of Tauqeer, accused in Crime No. 164 of 2023 under IPC sections 452, 302, 120‑B/34. The applicant argued that the sole witness PW‑1 did not support the allegations, that he was falsely implicated, has no prior record and has been in …

SAPNA PANDEYversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

The applicant, Sapna Pandey, filed an application under Section 529 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking a court order directing the Family Court to decide the pending Miscellaneous Case No. 597 of 2022 (under Section 125(3) read with Section 128 CrPC) within a fixed time‑frame. The State opposed …

MOHAMMAD ANASversusSTATE OF U.P.

The High Court considered an anticipatory bail application filed by Mohammad Anas under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code in a case registered under several IPC sections, including 115(2), 352, 351(2), 308(5), 309(4) and 61(2). The applicant claimed he was falsely implicated in a false …

ALOK KUMAR JHANWARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

The applicant filed an application under Section 528 of the CrPC seeking quash of criminal proceedings, alleging that the parties had amicably settled the dispute and a compromise was verified by the trial court on 23 March 2026. The trial court confirmed the settlement, and the State and the second …

DEV PRATAP ALIAS DEEPAKversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

The applicant filed an application under Section 529 of the BNSS seeking a court order directing the trial court to expedite the disposal of a pending Sessions case (No. 467 of 2022) involving offences under Sections 420, 328, 376, 384 IPC and Sections 66D, 66E of the IT Act. The respondent, the …

ASIF MIYANversusSTATE OF U.P.

The applicant, Asif Miyan, filed an application under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking to quash two orders of the Sessions Judge, Rampur, which had denied him the opportunity to cross‑examine PW‑5 (Constable Dheer Singh) and PW‑9 (S.I. Sohan Lal). The applicant …

ROHIT KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

Rohit Kumar was arrested in connection with a case (Crime No.357 of 2024) alleging offences under IPC sections 363, 3366, 376(2)(n) and Section 51/6 of the POCSO Act. He contended that he was falsely implicated and that the alleged victim, who had married him and bore his child, had given a consent …

AKASH NAGARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Akash Nagar filed an application under Section 528 of the CrPC seeking to quash a charge‑sheet dated 13‑01‑2024 and a summoning order dated 21‑06‑2024 in a criminal case where he was charged under Sections 420 and 406 of the IPC. The applicant contended that, according to the Supreme Court’s …

RAVIKANT YADAVversusSTATE OF U.P.

The High Court considered an anticipatory bail application filed by Ravikant Yadav under Section 482 of the CrPC in a case involving alleged offences under Sections 115(2), 117(2), 352, 351(3), 191(2), 109(1) and 3(5) of the B.N.S. 2023. The applicant claimed false implication, noting that the FIR …

SMT BALA @ RAJ BALAversusSTATE OF U.P.

The High Court considered an anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the CrPC filed by Smt Bala, a 76‑year‑old woman, who was alleged to be involved in offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. The FIR was lodged thirty‑one years after the alleged incident and after a belated …

DHARMIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

The applicant, Dharmi, filed an anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the CrPC in a case involving alleged offences under IPC sections 109, 117(2), 115(2), 352 and 351(2). He claimed that co‑accused Rohit Bhati and Jeetu @ Jitendra had already been granted anticipatory bail by another …

SATYENDRA @ SATYENDRA KUMAR GUPTA AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

The applicants filed an anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code in a case involving multiple IPC offences and a provision of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, alleging false implication in an FIR concerning stone‑pelting and road‑jam. They argued that they were …

SMT RAJNI AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

The High Court of Allahabad considered an anticipatory bail application filed by Smt. Rajni and Smt. Anu (Kamlesh) under CrPC Section 482 in a case involving alleged assault under various IPC sections. The applicants, both women with no criminal record, claimed they were falsely implicated due to …

SOVARAN SINGH AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash the charge‑sheet dated 10‑10‑2008, the cognizance and summoning order dated 04‑11‑2008, and the entire criminal proceedings (Case No. 7792 of 2020) relating to offences under Sections 323, 324 and …

RAMJANIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

The applicant sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code in a case involving offences under Sections 333, 325, 352, 351(2) and 109(1) of the Indian Penal Code. The counsel requested permission to withdraw the anticipatory bail application and instead file a regular …

OM PRAKASH TIWARIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Om Prakash Tiwari, the accused in Criminal Case No. 8662 of 2026, was charged under Sections 406, 420 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. He filed an application under Section 528 of the CrPC seeking quash of the charge‑sheet and the cognizance/summoning order, contending that Sections 406 (criminal …

KRISHNA KUMAR SINGH AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

The applicants filed a Section 528 CrPC application seeking to quash a non‑bailable warrant and the process under Sections 82 and 83 CrPC dated 05‑06‑2023 issued by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi, in a case involving offences under Sections 147, 332, 353, 336 and 427 IPC. The …

KALYAN SINGH AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

The revisionists, Kalyan Singh and another, challenged the trial court's order rejecting their discharge application in a complaint case under Section 406 IPC. They argued that the evidence recorded under Section 202 CrPC contradicted that under Section 244 CrPC and that the complaint was filed …

SOMPALversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

The applicant, Sompal, filed an application under Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking the quashing of the charge‑sheet dated 23‑03‑2026, the cognizance order dated 13‑05‑2026, and the entire criminal proceedings (Criminal Case No.6210 of 2026) arising from an FIR that alleged offences …

MALATI DEVI AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash the cognizance and summoning order dated 22‑12‑2022 in Criminal Case No.15790 of 2022, which was based on a charge‑sheet under IPC Sections 420, 406, 504 and 506. They contended that these offences …

SMT. SHYAMO YADAV @ GEETA @ SIKHA AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

The applicants, Smt. Shyamo Yadav and another, filed an application under Section 528 of the CrPC seeking to quash the charge‑sheet dated 12‑05‑2023 and the cognizance/summoning order dated 28‑06‑2023 in Criminal Case No. 5314 of 2023. They contended that the charge‑sheet improperly alleged both …

DASHRATH UPADHYAY AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash the criminal proceedings (Case No.13521 of 2022) pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi, which arose from Crime No.337 of 2020. They relied on a prior order dated …

RAMU TIWARI AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF UP

The applicants, Ramu Tiwari and Amrita Tiwari, filed an anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the CrPC in a case involving alleged execution of a forged sale deed. They claimed they were unaware of the forgery, having signed the deed under instructions from their mother and grandmother, …

VIJAY CHATURVEDIversusSTATE OF U.P.

Vijay Chaturvedi filed an anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code in connection with a criminal case (Crime No. 59 of 2026) involving alleged offences under Sections 305(B), 317(2) and 317(4) of the B.N.S., 2023. He feared arrest and sought protection to appear …

VIPIN KUMAR HARIT AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the CrPC seeking to quash the charge‑sheet and cognizance order dated 11‑07‑2025 in Criminal Case No. 638 of 2025 (State vs. Sanjeev Kumar) which alleged offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. They contended, relying on a recent Supreme …

ASHALESH CHAUHAN @ CHAIYAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

The applicant filed an anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the CrPC in a case involving offences under IPC sections 363, 372, 504, 506, the POCSO Act and the SC/ST Act. The applicant’s counsel sought permission to withdraw the anticipatory bail application and to file a regular bail …

USMAN AND AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

The applicants Usman, Farhan (Monu) and Nauman sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC in a case involving IPC offences of dacoity, hurt, assault, criminal intimidation, attempt to murder and conspiracy. Usman, who has two prior criminal cases, was denied anticipatory bail, with the court …

MURSALEEM AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash the charge‑sheet dated 21‑11‑2024 and the cognizance/summoning order dated 16‑07‑2026 in State v. Waseem and others, relating to offences under Sections 447, 504, 506, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian …

SACHIN CHAURASIYAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

Sachin Chaurasiya filed a criminal revision challenging an order of the Prayagraj Family Court that directed him to pay interim maintenance of Rs.7,000 and Rs.3,000 per month to two opposite parties from the date of the maintenance application (12.01.2026). He expressed willingness to comply but …

RAJNESH @ ANURAG YADAVversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

The applicant, Rajnesh @ Anurag Yadav, filed an anticipatory bail application under CrPC s.482 after a charge sheet was lodged. The Additional Government Advocate argued that the alleged offences do not carry a punishment exceeding seven years, so there is no fear of arrest. The applicant’s counsel …

DEEPAK @ ROHITversusSTATE OF U.P.

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Deepak @ Rohit, who was arrested in Crime No.151 of 2026 under several IPC sections. The applicant argued that he was falsely implicated, citing a five‑month delay in lodging the FIR and a lack of corroborative evidence linking him to the alleged …

GOPAL SHARMAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

The applicant, Gopal Sharma, filed an application under Section 528 of the CrPC seeking to quash the chargesheet and the cognizance‑summoning order dated 16‑04‑2018 in Criminal Case No.6900970, which alleged offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC. The applicant contended, relying on the …

RAJKUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Rajkumar in a criminal case (Crime No. 179 of 2026) alleging abduction and forced sexual relations with a major girl. The prosecution’s FIR alleged that the accused enticed the victim away, while the victim’s statements under Sections 180 and 183 …

MASHKOORversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Mashkoor applied for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the CrPC in a case where he was charged with offences including rape, dowry prohibition violations, and various IPC offences. This was his second anticipatory bail application; the first had been dismissed after the charge sheet was filed. …

VISHAL @ HAPPYversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

The applicant filed an application under Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash the cognizance and summoning order dated 13‑11‑2025 in a criminal case involving offences under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 352, 351(3) of the IPC, Section 109 of the B.N.S and Section 30 of the …

HARISH CHAUDHARYversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Harish Chaudhary filed an application under Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash a charge sheet dated 18‑06‑2025 and the related criminal proceedings (Case No. 7676 of 2026) instituted by the State of Uttar Pradesh. The charge sheet alleged offences under Sections 419, 420, …

MAHENDRA SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Mahendra Singh filed an application under Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code challenging the order of sanction in a criminal case. The applicant, through counsel Santosh Yadav, sought permission to withdraw the application while reserving the right to contest the sanction order before a …

KARAN AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P.

The applicants filed an anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the CrPC in a case (Crime No. 419 of 2026) alleging offences under Sections 110 and 351(3) of the BNSS, fearing arrest. The State opposed, arguing that the alleged offences do not attract a punishment exceeding seven years …

KESHAV AND 13 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

The applicants, Keshav and 13 others, filed an application under Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash the entire criminal proceedings (Case No. 187 of 2026) arising from charges under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 121(1), 132, 125, 115(2), 352 and 3(v) of the BNS. The High Court …

OMENDRA SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

The Allahabad High Court considered an anticipatory bail application under Section 482 CrPC filed by Omendra Singh in a case involving IPC offences 420, 467, 468 and 471. The applicant argued that he had no criminal antecedents, no coercive process had been initiated, and that the charge sheet had …

NEHA SHARMAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Neha Sharma filed an application under Section 528 of the CrPC seeking to quash the summoning order and charge sheet in Criminal Case No. 99192 of 2024 (State vs. Lokesh et al.) which alleged offences under Sections 420, 406, 506 and 120B IPC. The applicant contended that Sections 420 (cheating) and …

TASAVVAR AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash criminal proceedings (Case No. 7257 of 2024) arising from Crime No. 309 of 2023, which alleged offences under Sections 452, 323, 504 and 506 IPC. The parties had already reached an amicable …

PUSHPENDRA AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

The applicants filed a petition under Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash the charge‑sheet, cognizance order and the entire criminal proceedings (Case No. 11732 of 2025) relating to offences under Sections 352, 351(3) and 109(1) of the IPC arising from a dispute in …

MUSTAKEEM AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

The applicants, Mustakeem and Smt. Bhoori, who are the father‑in‑law and mother‑in‑law of the alleged victim, filed an anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the CrPC in a case alleging that they administered a poisonous substance to the victim. The prosecution alleged offences under IPC …

IRFAN AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash a non‑bailable warrant (NBW) dated 27‑09‑2021 issued in a 2010 case involving offences under Sections 323, 324, 504 and 506 IPC. They argued that they had already been granted bail but failed to …

YUSUFversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

The applicant, Yusuf, filed an application under Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash Crime No.190 of 2016 (State of U.P. v. Yusuf) which involved charges under Sections 398 and 401 of the IPC, the charge‑sheet dated 25‑02‑2014 and a non‑bailable warrant. The High Court …

SACHINversusSTATE OF U.P.

The applicant, Sachin, filed an anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code in a case involving alleged offences under Sections 110, 352 and 115(2) of the B.N.S. Act, claiming false implication and asserting that the injuries to parties on both sides were mutual. …

JANG BAHADUR SINGH @ JANGIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

The High Court considered an anticipatory bail application filed by Jang Bahadur Singh under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code in connection with a case under the U.P. Gangster and Antisocial Activities (Prevention) Act. The applicant argued that the FIR was vague, did not satisfy the …

PANKAJversusSTATE OF U.P.

The applicant filed an anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the BNSS in a case involving alleged offences under Sections 74, 115(2) and 351(2) of the BNSS, claiming fear of arrest. The State opposed, arguing that the offences do not attract a punishment of more than seven years and …

AKBAR ALIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

The applicant, Akbar Ali, filed an application under Section 528 of the CrPC seeking to quash the cognizance and summoning order dated 16‑01‑2023 in Criminal Case No. 932 of 2023, which alleged offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC arising from a 2021 incident. The applicant contended, relying on …

AMBRISH SRIVASTAVA @ DEEPUversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

The applicant, Ambrish Srivastava, filed an application under Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash the cognizance and summoning order dated 8 April 2021 and the entire proceedings of case No. 95215 of 2021, which involved charges under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal …

RAMDAYAL RAIversusSTATE OF U.P.

Ramdayal Rai was arrested in a case registered under Sections 498‑A, 377, 323, 506 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. He contended that the FIR was false, filed after an application under Section 156(3) of the CrPC, and that there was no medical evidence to support the …

KUNJ BIHARI SHARANversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

The High Court considered an anticipatory bail application under Section 482 filed by Kunj Bihari Sharan. The State opposed, highlighting an undisclosed prior case (Case Crime No. 327 of 2005) involving offences under Sections 147, 307, 323, 452 and 506 IPC. The court held that the applicant’s …

OMPAL SHARMA @ OM PRAKASHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

The applicant, Ompal Sharma, was named among twelve accused in a case involving assault causing non‑life‑threatening injuries to three victims. He had no prior criminal record and had earlier obtained interim protection from arrest in a writ petition, which was later dismissed. The applicant sought …

SMT. SUNITAversusSTATE OF U.P.

The High Court considered a second bail application filed by Smt. Sunita, who is accused of embezzlement under IPC sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 and 120‑B. The first bail application had been dismissed, but the applicant argued that the trial had stalled for five months after framing of …

MUBARIKversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

The applicant, Mubarik, filed an anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the CrPC in a case (Crime No. 103 of 2024) involving alleged NDPS offences under Sections 8, 18 and 29. He claimed false implication, noting that the co-accused Nadeem was caught with 500 grams of opium and that his …

RAMAKANT AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash the charge sheet dated 29 March 2026 and the entire proceedings in State vs. Ramakant and others (Case No. 2066 of 2026). The charge sheet pertained to offences under Sections 329(3), 111(7), 352 …

SAKHAWATversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

The applicant filed an application under Section 528 CrPC seeking quash of criminal proceedings, asserting that the parties had amicably settled the dispute and a compromise was verified by the trial court on 22‑01‑2026. The State and the second opposite party did not contest the settlement. The …

MOHD RAHIM ALIAS ABDUL RAHIM AND 5 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the CrPC seeking quash of criminal proceedings, claiming that the dispute had been amicably settled and a compromise was verified by the trial court on 06‑02‑2026. The State, represented by the learned A.G.A., did not contest the settlement. …

DILIP PATWA AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the CrPC seeking quash of criminal proceedings, claiming that the dispute had been amicably settled and a compromise was verified by the trial court. The trial court had confirmed the settlement on 30.01.2026, and the opposite party 2 …

SHAKIR ALI AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the CrPC seeking quash of criminal proceedings, asserting that the dispute had been amicably settled and a compromise was verified by the trial court on 19‑02‑2026. The trial court confirmed the settlement, and the State and the second …

KHUSHBU AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

The applicants filed an application under Section 528 CrPC seeking quash of criminal proceedings (Case No. 655 of 2025) on the ground that the dispute had been amicably settled and a compromise was verified by the trial court on 30 January 2026. The trial court confirmed the settlement, and the …

AJAYPAL AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

The applicants filed an application under Section 528 CrPC seeking quash of criminal proceedings, claiming that the dispute with the State and other respondents had been amicably settled and a compromise was verified by the trial court on 19‑02‑2026. The High Court noted that the parties had indeed …

MAHENDRA ASHOK SHINGARE AND ORSversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS

Allowed

The petitioners, directors of Nasik Krushi Vikas Producer Company, were accused of forging the complainant's signature to obtain loans from two NBFCs, but the loans were fully repaid and a settlement deed was executed by all parties. The complainant consented to quash the FIR dated 20-11-2025 under …

GANESH BHAUSAHEB KALEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Allowed

Ganesh Bhausaheb Kale, accused No.10 in a case involving murder, conspiracy, extortion and organised crime offences, had been in custody for over five years and six months. He sought regular bail under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, arguing that his prolonged detention violated his …

Pravin Harkishan MalkaniversusThe State of Maharashtra

Disposed Off

The applicant, Pravin Harkishan Malkani, filed a criminal application under Section 438 of the CrPC seeking relaxation of a condition that required him to attend the police station every two months, a condition imposed by a Special Judge under the POCSO Act in 2022. The FIR was lodged in 2018, the …

DNYANESHWAR @ ROHIT BAJRANG SAKATversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Allowed

The Bombay High Court considered a bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, on behalf of Dnyaneshwar @ Rohit Bajrang Sakat, accused No.3 in a murder case (CR No. 425/2024). The FIR alleged that …

FAISAL @ DADI SHAFI SHAIKHversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Allowed

Faisal @ Dadi Shafi Shaikh, arrested on 14‑10‑2024, was charged under Sections 8(c), 22(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act for possession of 99.05 g of contraband, a commercial quantity. He has been in custody for 1 year 10 months while the trial has not commenced, whereas co‑accused No. 2 and No. 3 have …

Gangaram Yasha ShidversusThe State of Maharashtra

Disposed Off

The applicant, Gangaram Yasha Shid, was convicted by a First Class Judicial Magistrate in Raigad-Alibag for offences under IPC sections 354, 354-A(1) and 509, receiving one year of rigorous imprisonment, one year of simple imprisonment, and a compensation order under CrPC section 357(3). The …

AHMED FARAAZ RAAZIversusState of UP AND ANOTHER

The applicant filed a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash a summoning order dated 21 October 2021 that had been issued in a criminal complaint under Sections 452, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant contended that the dispute was purely civil, …

RAKESHversusSTATE OF U.P.

The appellant Rakesh was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Agra, for raping an 18‑month‑old girl and for house‑trespass, under Sections 376 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to ten years imprisonment and a fine. The prosecution case relied on eyewitness testimony of the …

JAMAL AKHTARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

The applicant, Jamal Akhtar, filed an application under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking to quash the charge‑sheet dated 17‑April‑2010 and the entire criminal proceedings (Case No. 10745 of 2010) arising from offences under Sections 324, 323, 504 and 506 IPC. The applicant alleged false implication, …

RAMANAND AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

The applicants filed an application under Section 528 BNSS seeking to quash the Sessions Trial No. 557 of 2025, which arose from a case of alleged offences under various IPC sections. The applicants argued that they were falsely implicated and that the proceedings constituted an abuse of process, …

KUNWAR DIVYANKAR PRATAP SINGHversusTHE STATE OF U.P THRU SECY. HOME LUCKNOW AND ANR.

Allowed/Partly Allowed on merits/Granted

Kunwar Divyankar Pratap Singh filed an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (No. 248 of 2014) before the Allahabad High Court seeking relief against the State of Uttar Pradesh. The matter was listed as a ‘case not to be adjourned’, but the applicant’s counsel did not appear. …

BABAN BAPU KHARAT AND ORSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

Disposed Off

The Applicants, who were original respondents in a domestic violence (DV) proceeding, filed an application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking quash of the DV complaint against them, arguing that the complaint contains no specific allegations against them. The State contended that the remedy of …

PINTOO SARJU GAUTAMversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

Disposed Off

The High Court considered a bail application under Section 439 of the CrPC filed by Pintoo Sarju Gautam, accused of offences including murder, kidnapping, and sexual assault against a 16‑year‑old deaf boy. The prosecution’s case relied solely on a “last seen” theory, with no direct or circumstantial …

AKARSHAN RAMESH SHRISHRIMALversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Allowed

The applicant, accused as No.3 in an NDPS case, sought bail under Section 439 of the CrPC after being detained for one year and nine months with no trial progress. The prosecution alleged he supplied small quantities of contraband, based on evidence from his mobile phone, and received modest sums …

CHETAN SANJAY MAHAJANversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Allowed

The High Court considered a bail application under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code filed by Chetan Sanjay Mahajan, accused No.3 in a fraud case involving the ‘Open Hands’ investment scheme. The prosecution alleged that the accused participated in a syndicate that amassed Rs.26.73 lakhs, …

RENUKA NIKHL KHANNA @ JAKHARversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Disposed Off

The Bombay High Court considered a regular bail application under Section 439 of the CrPC and Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita filed by Renuka Nikhil Khanna, accused of murdering her husband under Section 302 IPC. The applicant had been in custody for over two years and suffered …

SATISH RAMVILASH PANDEYversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

Allowed

The petitioner, Satish Ramvilash Pandey, filed a writ petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking quash of FIR No. 254 of 2019 relating to an alleged assault on 24 April 2019. The prosecution alleged that accused No.1 and No.2 assaulted the complainant, while the petitioner …

NAVNATH KAKASAHEB NIHALversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Allowed

The Bombay High Court considered an application under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code for bail to Navnath Kakasaheb Nihal, accused of murder and related offences under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant had been in custody for over two years, with a period of …

MRS. SMITA MANOJ KHARATversusBABAN BAPU KHARAT AND ORS

Disposed Off

The Applicants, who were original respondents in a domestic violence (DV) proceeding, filed an application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking quash of the DV complaint against them, arguing that the complaint contains no specific allegations against them. The State contended that the remedy of …

RENUKA NIKHL KHANNA @ JAKHARversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Disposed Off

The Bombay High Court considered a regular bail application under Section 439 of the CrPC and Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita filed by Renuka Nikhil Khanna, accused of murdering her husband under Section 302 IPC. The applicant had been in custody for over two years and suffered …

HANUMAN @ HANUMANT LAHU BHOIRversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Allowed

The appellant, convicted of murder under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine, has been incarcerated for over 11 years in an open prison and has no prior criminal record. He filed an interim application seeking bail and suspension of his sentence pending a criminal appeal …

DIPAKBHAI KAKADIYA AND ANRversusTHE UNION OF INDIA AND ANR

Dismissed

The applicants sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with alleged customs duty evasion offences under the Customs Act, 1962. The prosecution relied on a statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act by co‑accused Chirag …