Allahabad High Court
ARCHANA KAPOORversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- SAURABH SRIVASTAVA
Holding
The application under Section 528 CrPC is dismissed as not pressed.
Summary
The applicant, Archana Kapoor, filed an application under Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash the cognizance and summons order dated 04.03.2025 in a criminal case (Case No.3100 of 2025) involving offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120‑B of the IPC. During the pendency of this application, a discharge application filed by the applicant was rejected on 11.09.2025, prompting the applicant to file an amendment application on 08.02.2026. The court observed that the amendment did not include a certified copy of the order being challenged and failed to set out any specific grounds of challenge, rendering it procedurally defective. Consequently, the court dismissed the original Section 528 application as not pressed and directed the return of the documents to the applicant’s counsel. The order was signed on 18.02.2026 by Justice Saurabh Srivastava.
Issues considered
- Whether the amendment application filed on 08.02.2026, lacking a certified copy of the impugned order and specific grounds, is maintainable.
- Whether the original application under Section 528 CrPC can be dismissed for being not pressed in view of procedural deficiencies.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471
Subjects
- Section 528 CrPC
- quash of criminal proceedings
- procedural defect
- amendment application
- criminal procedure
- order dismissal
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 27245 of 2025
Archana Kapoor
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Bidhan Chandra Rai, Stuti Rai
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Manoj Kumar Srivastava, Mohd Raghib
Ali, Deepak Rana, G.A.
Court No. - 75
HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. Heard Sri Bidhan Chandra Rai, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms.
Stuti Rai, learned counsel for applicant and Sri Saghir Ahmad, learned
Senior Advocate assisted by Mohd. Raghib Ali along with Sri Deepak Rana,
learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the
State.
2. The present application has been filed for quashing of
cognizance/summoning order dated 04.03.2025 and entire proceedings of
Case No.3100 of 2025 (State Vs. Sanjiv Kapoor and others), arising out of
Case Crime No.467 of 2024, under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, P.S.
Sihani Gate, District Ghaziabad, pending in the court of learned Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.3, Ghaziabad.
3. It has been transpired during course of argument that during pendency of
the instant application, discharge application preferred at the behest of
applicant, was rejected vide order dated 11.09.2025 passed by learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.3, Ghaziabad which has been
apprised through specific affidavit dated 05.01.2026 preferred at the behest
of applicant.
4. Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of applicant submitted that
being aggrieved with the order dated 11.09.2025, an amendment application
has already been preferred at the behest of applicant seeking amendment in
the prayer clause for challenging order dated 11.09.2025 passed by learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.3, Ghaziabad.
5. By bare perusal of the amendment application filed on dated 08.02.2026
which is supported with an affidavit, it appears that the same does not
NA528 No. 27245 of 2025
2
contain the certified copy of order dated 11.09.2025 but the same has already
been preferred while filing affidavit dated 05.01.2026. It also appears from
perusal of the amendment application that no grounds have been taken up for
challenging the order dated 11.09.2025 which has been sought to be
amended in the prayer clause along with other prayers, meaning thereby, if
the prayer sought through the amendment application is accepted, there will
be so many incorporation which have to be made in the prayer clause as well
as in the pleadings and as such, in the interest of justice, the instant
application is hereby dismissed as not pressed with liberty to file afresh by
way of challenging all the orders/proceedings through which applicant is
aggrieved.
6. Office is hereby directed to return the certified copies of orders/documents
appended with this application as well as affidavits to learned counsel for
applicant forthwith after retaining photocopy of the same on record.
February 18, 2026
Vivek Kr.
(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
VIVEK KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…