Allahabad High Court
RAJKUMAR SAVITA AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF UP AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- SAURABH SRIVASTAVA
Holding
The application under Section 528 CrPC is dismissed as no sufficient ground for quashing the order exists.
Summary
The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash the cognizance and summoning order dated 28‑11‑2025 in Crime No. 454 of 2024, alleging that the FIR and charge‑sheet did not warrant interference. The High Court examined the FIR, the impugned order and the charge‑sheet and concluded that none of the grounds for quashing under Section 528 CrPC were made out. Consequently, the court refused the prayer to set aside the order and dismissed the application. The court, however, directed that the applicants may surrender within 15 days and apply for bail, which should be decided expeditiously in line with the Supreme Court’s decision in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI. Until surrender, no coercive action was to be taken against the applicants.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can quash the cognizance and summoning order under Section 528 CrPC in the present case.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 115(2), 191(2), 528
- Indian Penal Code — s. 351(3), 352
Subjects
- Section 528 CrPC
- quash of FIR
- cognizance order
- bail application
- criminal procedure
- high court jurisdiction
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 12184 of 2026
Rajkumar Savita And 3 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Diwas Verma, G.S.Chauhan
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 77
HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. Heard Sri G.S.Chauhan, learned counsel for applicants, learned AGA for
State and Sri Manish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2
who preferred vakalatnama which is taken on record.
2. This present application has been filed for seeking quashing of
cognizance/summoning order dated 28.11.2025 and entire proceeding of
Case Crime No. 454 of 2024 (State vs. Rajkumar Savita and others), under
Sections 191(2), 115(2), 352, 351(3) BNS, P.S. Hanumant Vihar, District
Kanpur Nagar.
3. On perusal of the narration of FIR as well as impugned order and
chargesheet, this Court does not find it to be a case where interference of this
Court is required. No such ground appears to be available in the present
application, on the basis of which, impugned order along with chargesheet,
can be set aside.
4. Accordingly, the prayer sought through the instant application, is refused.
5. Lastly, learned counsel for applicants has submitted that liberty may be
granted to applicants to surrender before the court concerned and apply for
bail to which learned AGA has no objection.
6. In view of the aforesaid, the instant application is finally disposed of with
a direction to the court concerned that in case, the applicants surrender
before the court concerned within a period of 15 days from today and apply
NA528 No. 12184 of 2026
2
for bail and if there is no other legal impediment before court concerned,
their bail application shall be considered and decided expeditiously in
accordance with law laid down in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs.
Central Bureau of Investigation and another (2022 SCC OnLine SC
825).
7. However, it is made clear that till 15 days from today, no coercive action
shall be taken against applicants herein in pursuance of aforesaid case.
(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)
April 20, 2026
Shaswat
Digitally signed by :-
SHASWAT SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…