Allahabad High Court
ASHOK AND 8 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- SAURABH SRIVASTAVA
Holding
The court held that there is no ground to quash the chargesheet and cognizance order, and therefore dismissed the application.
Summary
The applicants, Ashok and eight others, filed an application under Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash a chargesheet dated 30‑12‑2024 and the cognizance order dated 09‑04‑2025 in State v. Sandeep Kumar (Case No. 946 of 2025) relating to offences under various IPC sections. The High Court examined the FIR, the chargesheet and the order and found no ground for interference under Section 528. Consequently, the court refused the prayer to set aside the chargesheet and order. The court, however, directed that if the applicants surrender within 15 days and apply for bail, their bail applications should be decided expeditiously, citing Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022). It also ordered that no coercive action be taken against the applicants for the next 15 days.
Issues considered
- Whether the chargesheet and cognizance order can be quashed under Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528
- Indian Penal Code — s. 115(2), 117(2), 118(1), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 351(3), 352
Subjects
- quash of FIR
- Section 528 CrPC
- chargesheet
- bail
- coercive action
- High Court
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 15711 of 2026
Ashok And 8 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Indrakesh Kumar Sharma
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 77
HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for applicants and learned AGA
appearing for the State.
2. This application has been filed for seeking quashing of
chargesheet dated 30.12.2024 along with cognizance/summoning
order dated 09.04.2025 passed in Case No.946 of 2025 (State Vs.
Sandeep Kumar and others), arising out of Case Crime No.641 of
2024, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 115(2), 352, 351(3(,
117(2), 118(1) BNS, P.S. Sikandra Rau, District Hathras, pending
in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Sikandra Rau,
Hathras.
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.
NA528 No. 15711 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 applicants surrender before the court concerned within a
period of 15 days from today and apply for bail, 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.
April 20, 2026
Vivek Kr.
(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
VIVEK KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…