SHYAMPALversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                 APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 18455 of 2026

Shyampal
                                                           .....Applicant(s)
                                    Versus

State of U.P. and Another
                                                                .....Opposite
                                                                      Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)                       :   Shobh Nath Pal
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)                  :   G.A.

Court No. - 80
                   HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. appearing
for the State.

2. Present application has been filed for quashing the impugned
summoning order dated 19.3.2025 passed by Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Kastganj in Criminal Case No. 252 of 2025 (State vs.
Tarachandra and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 157 of 2024,
under Sections 363, 376 IPC, Police Station Sahawar, District Kasganj.

3. In the instant matter, an FIR was lodged by O.P. no.2 against applicant
and two named accused on 01.06.2024 in respect of incident which has
taken place on 31.05.2024. After recording evidence, final report was
submitted and on protest petition, summons were issued on 19.03.2025,
which has been challenged in this application.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is no allegation of
abduction against the applicant in the statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. of the
victim. He next submits that statement of victim u/s 164 was recorded
under pressure of her guardian, so therein she has falsely implicated the
applicant and stated in contradiction to her earlier statement recorded u/s
161 Cr.P.C. He further submits that there is contradiction in statements of
other witnesses. He next submits that FIR was lodged due to enmity
arising out of election of Village Pradhan. He further contends that the
applicant is innocent and he has not committed any offences. Further
submission is that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the
                                                      NA528 No. 18455 of 2026
                               2


court below has utterly failed to consider that no prima facie case is made
out against the applicant. He further submits that the applicant was in a
hospital at the time of the alleged incident and this fact was verified by
the Investigating Officer and thus submitted final report against the
applicant.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that plea of alibi
cannot be considered while passing summoning order. To buttress his
argument, he has placed reliance on the judgment passed by Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the matter of Harjinder Singh vs. State of Punjab and
anothers, 2025 INSC 634. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the
application and contended that the Court below has rightly summoned the
applicant and no interference is required by this Court in the impugned
order as well as the on going proceedings.

6. From the perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of the
case at this stage it cannot be said that prima facie no offence is made out
against the applicant. The cognizance / summoning order dated
19.03.2025 has been issued after perusing the material collected during
investigation of the case. The arguments raised by learned counsel for the
applicant are all disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated
upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima
facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme
Court. The same impugned order was challenged by co-accused
Tarachandra in Application u/s 528 BNSS No. 24411 of 2025 but co-
ordinate Bench of this Court found no merit and, therefore, the aforesaid
528 application was dismissed on merits vide order dated 14.7.2025.

7. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan
Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1918, R.P. Kapur Vs. State of
Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992
SCC (Cr.) 192, and lastly, Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs.
Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 has
held that only those cases in which no prima facie case is made out can be
considered in an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
                                                                                             NA528 No. 18455 of 2026
                                                                     3


                                    8. The instant application does not fall under the guidelines laid down by
                                    the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgments mentioned above, and
                                    followed in a number of matters. Moreover, the facts as alleged cannot be
                                    said that, prima facie, no offence is made out against the applicant. It is
                                    only after the evidence and trial, it can be seen as to whether the offence,
                                    as alleged, has been committed or not.

                                    9. However, it is open for the applicant to take all its defence in the trial.

                                    10. Hence, the instant application cannot be entertained and is,
                                    accordingly, dismissed.



                                                                                         (Vivek Kumar Singh,J.)
                                    May 5, 2026
                                    Lalit Shukla




Digitally signed by :-
LALIT KUMAR SHUKLA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad