Allahabad High Court
GUDDUversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- SAURABH SRIVASTAVA
Holding
The application for quash under Section 528 CrPC is dismissed; the chargesheet and proceedings stand.
Summary
The applicant Guddu filed an application under Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash the chargesheet dated 27‑11‑2019, the cognizance order dated 30‑01‑2021, and the entire proceedings of Case No.84 of 2021 (State vs. Satyendra Singh and others) relating to a theft offence under Section 379 IPC. The High Court examined the FIR, the impugned order and the chargesheet and found no ground for interference or for setting aside the proceedings. Consequently, the court refused the prayer for quash. However, the court directed that the applicant may surrender within 15 days and apply for bail, and that no coercive action be taken against him during that period, with the bail application to be decided expeditiously as per the Supreme Court decision in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI.
Issues considered
- Whether the chargesheet and the cognizance order can be quashed under Section 528 CrPC.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528
- Indian Penal Code — s. 379
Subjects
- quash
- Section 528 CrPC
- chargesheet
- Theft
- Section 379 IPC
- bail
- coercive action
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 15107 of 2026
Guddu
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Shaheen Baano
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 77
HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned AGA
appearing for the State.
2. This present application has been filed for seeking quashing of
chargesheet dated 27.11.2019 along with cognizance/summoning
order dated 30.01.2021 and entire proceeding of Case No.84 of
2021 (State Vs. Satyendra Singh and others), arising out of Case
Crime No.516 of 2019, under Section 379 IPC, P.S. Tilhar,
District Shahjahanpur, pending in the court of learned Civil Judge
(J.D.)/ Judicial Magistrate, Tilhar, Shahjahanpur.
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 and entire proceedings of
the said case, can be set aside.
4. Accordingly, the prayer sought through the instant application,
is refused.
5. Lastly, learned counsel for applicant has submitted that liberty
may be granted to applicant to surrender before the court
concerned and apply for bail to which learned AGA has no
objection.
NA528 No. 15107 of 2026
2
6. In view of the aforesaid, the instant application is finally
disposed of with a direction to the court concerned that in case,
the applicant surrenders before the court concerned within a
period of 15 days from today and applies for bail, his 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 applicant herein in
pursuance of aforesaid case.
May 6, 2026
Vivek Kr.
(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
VIVEK KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…