Allahabad High Court
PRITI AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- SAURABH SRIVASTAVA
Holding
The court held that no ground existed to interfere with the lower court’s orders and therefore dismissed the application for quashing.
Summary
The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash the chargesheet dated 15‑07‑2017, the cognizance and summoning order dated 12‑04‑2019, and the entire proceedings of State Vs. Rajesh @ Tuntun (Case No. 2279 of 2019) relating to offences under Sections 448, 379, 427, 504, 506 and 411 IPC. The High Court examined the FIR, the impugned orders and the chargesheet and found no ground for interference under Section 528. Consequently, the court refused the prayer for quashing and dismissed the application. The court, however, granted liberty to the applicants to appear through counsel during the trial, except on dates when personal presence is statutorily required. The order was pronounced by Justice Saurabh Srivastava on 21 September 2026.
Issues considered
- Whether the chargesheet, cognizance order and the proceedings can be quashed under Section 528 CrPC.
- Whether any ground exists for the High Court to interfere with the lower court's proceedings.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528
- Indian Penal Code — s. 379, 411, 427, 448, 504, 506
Subjects
- Section 528 CrPC
- quash of FIR
- chargesheet
- IPC offences
- high court application
- procedural law
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 23728 of 2026
Priti And Another
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ajit Manit Tripathi, Harsh Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Ashwani Kumar Pathak, G.A.
Court No. - 79
HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for applicants and Sri Ashwani Kumar Pathak,
learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as learned AGA appearing
for the State.
2. This application has been filed for seeking quashing of chargesheet
dated 15.07.2017 along with cognizance/summoning order dated
12.04.2019 and entire proceedings of Case No.2279 of 2019 (State Vs.
Rajesh @ Tuntun and others), arising out of Case Crime No.100 of 2017,
under Sections 448, 379, 427, 504, 506, 411 IPC, P.S. Gauri Bazar,
District Deoria, pending before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court
No.17, Deoria.
3. On perusal of the narration of FIR as well as impugned order and
chargesheet along with recovery memo, 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 applicants has submitted that liberty may be
granted to applicants to appear before learned court concerned in
pursuance of summoning order through their counsel to which learned
counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as learned AGA has no objection.
NA528 No. 23728 of 2026
2
6. Considering the facts that both the applicants are lady, the instant
application is finally disposed of with liberty to applicants to appear
before learned court concerned through their counsel during trial except
on the dates on which their presence will be mandatory as per the Statute.
(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)
September 21, 2026
Vivek Kr.
Digitally signed by :-
VIVEK KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…