Allahabad High Court
SAURABH @ SAURABH BHOJWALversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- MADAN PAL SINGH
Holding
The appeal to quash the summoning order and the proceedings was dismissed as no recognised ground for quashing existed.
Summary
The appellant, Saurabh Bhojwal, appealed to the Allahabad High Court seeking to quash the summoning order dated 19‑09‑2025 and the entire Special Sessions Trial No. 1222 of 2025 arising from Crime No. 306 of 2025, which involved several IPC offences and provisions of the Special Courts Act. The appellant alleged that the prosecution was malicious and that no offence was made out against him. The Court held that none of the Supreme Court‑recognised grounds for quashing a criminal complaint were present and that there was no abuse of process. It observed that the summoning court has the authority to discharge an accused even before charges are framed if it deems the charge groundless, but the appellant must first move an application for discharge within 20 days. The Court therefore refused the prayer to quash the proceedings and disposed of the appeal, leaving the matter to the trial court for further consideration.
Issues considered
- What are the grounds, if any, for quashing the summoning order and the criminal proceedings against the appellant?
- Does the prosecution constitute an abuse of the process of the Court?
- Does the summoning court have the power to discharge the accused before framing of charges?
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 109, 231, 3(5), 351(3), 352, 61(2)
- Special Courts Act — s. 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha), 3(2)(va)
Subjects
- quash of criminal proceedings
- abuse of process
- summoning order
- discharge of accused
- Special Sessions Trial
- criminal appeal
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1603 of 2026
Saurabh @ Saurabh Bhojwal
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) : Rahul Saxena
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 51
HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
2. The present appeal has been filed to quash the
summoning/cognizance order dated 19-09-2025, as well as the entire
proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No. 1222 of 2025, arising out
of Case Crime No. 306 of 2025, under Sections 109, 351(3), 352,
231, 3(5), 61(2) I.P.C. and Sections 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha) and 3(2)(va)
of the S.C./S.T. Act.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that no offence is made
out against the appellant and that the present prosecution has been
instituted with a mala fide intention to cause harassment.
4. In the absence of any of the grounds recognized by the Supreme
Court which may justify the quashing of the complaint or the
impugned proceedings, the prayer for quashing the same is refused,
as no abuse of the process of the Court is made out. The summoning
court is vested with sufficient powers to discharge the accused even
before the stage of framing of charges, if, for reasons to be recorded,
it considers the charge to be groundless.
5. As requested, the appellant is permitted to appear before the
concerned court within 20 days from today through counsel and
move an application seeking discharge.
6. No coercive measures shall be adopted against the appellant for a
CRLA No. 1603 of 2026
2
period of 20 days from today or till the filing of the discharge
application, whichever is earlier.
7. If the concerned court, after hearing the counsel for the accused, is
persuaded to take the view that the accused ought not to have been
summoned and that the charge is groundless, it shall not abstain
from discharging the accused merely on the ground that the material
available at the time of summoning is the same as that available at
the time of consideration of the discharge application.
8. On the other hand, if the court, after hearing the counsel for the
accused, holds the view that the accused has been rightly summoned
and that the material on record does not indicate the charges to be
groundless
9. it shall pass an order to that effect and proceed further in the matter
in accordance with law. It shall also be at liberty to adopt such
measures as are permissible in law to secure the presence of the
accused.
10. With the aforesaid observations, this appeal stands disposed of.
(Madan Pal Singh,J.)
May 7, 2026
pks
Digitally signed by :-
PANKAJ KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…