Allahabad High Court
AKSHAT SINGHALversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- SAURABH SRIVASTAVA
Holding
The charge‑framing proceedings must be kept in abeyance until the pending discharge application is decided.
Summary
The applicant, Akshat Singlar, filed an application under Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash the charge‑framing order dated 24‑02‑2024 and the summoning order dated 17‑01‑2024 in a Session Trial under Section 307 IPC. The applicant argued that a discharge application he had filed was still pending before the trial court, and that framing charges before deciding that application was impermissible. The State opposed the prayer but did not contest the argument that the pending discharge application should be decided first. The High Court examined the procedural requirement that a charge‑framing order cannot be sustained while a discharge application remains undecided. The Court held that the proceedings based on the charge‑framing order must be kept in abeyance until the discharge application is finally decided. Accordingly, the application was disposed of with a direction to stay the charge‑framing proceedings pending the outcome of the discharge application.
Issues considered
- Whether a charge‑framing order under Section 228 CrPC can be validly made when a discharge application under Section 528 CrPC is pending before the trial court.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 228, 528
- Indian Penal Code — s. 307
Subjects
- charge framing
- discharge application
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Section 228 CrPC
- Section 528 CrPC
- Section 307 IPC
- procedural law
- abeyance
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 16011 of 2026
Akshat Singhal
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Suvansit Kumar Jaiswal
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 77
HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for parties.
2. Present application has been preferred with prayer to quash
order dated 24.2.2024 whereby charges were framed against
the applicant under Section 228 Cr.P.C.and summoning order
dated 17.01.2024 as well as entire proceeding of Session Trial
no. 49 of 2024 (State of U.P. vs. Akshat Singhal) under section
307 IPC, arising out of Case Crime no. 534 of 2023, PS- Nai
Mandi, District Muzaffarnagar.
3. At the very outset, learned counsel for applicant challenged
the charge framing order only on the sole ground that discharge
application preferred at the behest of applicant was pending
before learned trial court concerned and without deciding the
same, charges were framed against the applicant vide
impugned order dated 24.2.2024 which is not sustainable in the
eye of law once discharge application has not been decided.
4. Learned AGA although vehemently opposed the prayer
sought through instant application but could not dispute the
aforesaid arguments.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the matter,
NA528 No. 16011 of 2026
2
instant application is hereby disposed of with direction that
proceedings in pursuance to framing of charges against
applicant shall be kept in abeyance only till decision over the
discharge application preferred at the behest of applicant, if not
already done.
May 5, 2026
Shaswat
(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SHASWAT SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…