Allahabad High Court
VIJAY PATEL AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- GAUTAM CHOWDHARY
Holding
The High Court held that under Section 528 BNSS it is not required to assess the correctness of the allegations, and therefore the application to quash the summoning order was dismissed.
Summary
The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking to quash a summoning order dated 01.04.2006 and the related criminal proceeding (Complaint Case No. 263 of 2006). The court examined the complaint and found that the allegations disclosed a cognizable offence and were supported by statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 of the CrPC. The High Court held that, in exercising its power under Section 528 BNSS, it is not required to assess the correctness of the allegations or the reliability of the evidence. Consequently, the prayer to quash the summons and the proceeding was refused. The court directed that the applicants may apply for bail within 15 days, and no coercive action would be taken during that period, following the Supreme Court guidelines in Satendra Kumar Antil v. CBI.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can quash a summoning order and criminal proceeding under Section 528 BNSS without evaluating the merits of the allegations.
- Whether the allegations in the complaint disclose a cognizable offence sufficient to sustain the summoning order.
Legislation cited
- Bihar National Security Act — s. 528
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 200, 202
- Indian Penal Code — s. 435, 504
Subjects
- Section 528 BNSS
- quash of summons
- cognizable offence
- bail application
- Criminal Procedure Code
- High Court of Allahabad
- summoning order
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 13510 of 2026
Vijay Patel And 2 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ritesh Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Vijay Kumar
Srivastava
Court No. - 82
HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for
the State as well as learned counsel for the informant and
perused the material brought on record.
2. This application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed for
quashing of summoning order dated 01.04.2006 as well entire
proceeding of Complaint Case No. 263 of 2006 (Vyas Noniya
Vs. Vijay Kurmi), under Sections 435, 504 I.P.C., Police
Station Sevrahi, District Kushinagar, pending before the court
of learned Judicial Magistrate, Kasya, District Kushinagar.
3. On perusal of the record, the Court finds that the allegations
made in the complaint disclose commission of a cognizable
offence and those allegations have found support in the
statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. on the
basis whereof the summoning order has been passed against
the applicant.
4. This Court in exercise of its power under Section 528 BNSS
is not required to assess the correctness of the allegations and
reliability of evidence. Thus, the prayer to quash the
summoning order and the consequential proceeding is refused.
5. The present application stands disposed of with the direction
that in case applicants appear before the court concerned and
apply for bail within 15 days from today, the same shall be
decided by the court concerned in accordance with law in view
of the guidelines of Apex Court in the case of Satendra
Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and
another (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021,
NA528 No. 13510 of 2026
2
decided on 07.10.2021).
6. For a period of aforesaid period of 15 days no coercive
action shall be taken against the applicants.
April 20, 2026
Mustaqeem.
(Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
MOHD MUSTAQEEM KHAN
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…