Allahabad High Court
GOVIND SONIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- MADAN PAL SINGH
Holding
The court held that there were no sufficient grounds to quash the summoning order and dismissed the appeal.
Summary
The appellant Govind Soni filed an appeal seeking to quash the summoning and cognizance order dated 10-10-2024 in Complaint Case No. 62 of 2024, which alleged offences under IPC sections 323, 504, 506 and Section 3(1)(da)(dha) of the SC/ST Act. He contended that no offence was made out against him and that the prosecution was instituted with a mala fide intention to harass. The High Court held that none of the Supreme Court‑recognised grounds for quashing a complaint or proceeding were satisfied and that there was no abuse of the court’s process. Consequently, the prayer to quash the order was refused, but the appellant was allowed to appear before the trial court within 20 days and file an application for discharge. The court also directed that no coercive measures be taken against the appellant during this period. The appeal was therefore disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the summoning/cognizance order in the criminal complaint can be quashed on the ground of mala fide prosecution.
- Whether the appellant has demonstrated any of the Supreme Court‑recognised grounds for quashing a criminal complaint.
- Whether the trial court has the power to discharge the accused before framing of charges if the material is deemed groundless.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 504, 506
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(1)(da)(dha)
Subjects
- quash
- summoning order
- criminal procedure
- discharge application
- abuse of process
- SC/ST Act
- IPC offences
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5203 of 2025
Govind Soni
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) : Rajiv Dwivedi
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 summoning/cognizance
order dated 10-10-2024, as well as the entire proceedings of
Complaint Case No. 62 of 2024, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC
and Section 3(1)(da)(dha) 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
period of 20 days from today or till the filing of the discharge
application, whichever is earlier.
CRLA No. 5203 of 2025
2
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 14, 2026
pks
Digitally signed by :-
PANKAJ KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…