Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

AMIT CHAUHAN AND 5 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided

Holding

The application to quash the summoning order and proceedings is refused, and the court orders surrender within four weeks and expeditious consideration of bail, with a temporary stay on coercive action.

Summary

The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash a summoning order dated 10‑10‑2017 and the ensuing criminal proceedings (Complaint No. 32 of 2017, later re‑filed as No. 1695 of 2022) under IPC sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Domestic Violence Act. During the hearing the applicants withdrew their request for quash and instead asked the court to direct that they be allowed to surrender and that any bail application be decided expeditiously. The State (represented by the A.G.) raised no objection to the alternative prayer. The High Court refused the relief to quash the order and proceedings, directed the applicants to surrender within four weeks of the certified copy of the order, and ordered that no coercive action be taken against them during that period. The court further directed that any bail application be decided in line with the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2021). The application was consequently disposed of.

Issues considered

  • Whether the summoning order and the criminal proceedings can be quashed under Section 528 CrPC.
  • Whether the court may direct the applicants to surrender and order an expeditious hearing of a bail application.
  • Whether a temporary stay on coercive action is permissible pending surrender.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • quash order
  • Section 528 CrPC
  • bail
  • coercive action
  • domestic violence
  • IPC sections 498A, 323, 504, 506
  • criminal procedure

Judgment

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                 APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 33649 of 2026

Amit Chauhan And 5 Others
                                                           .....Applicant(s)
                                    Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s)                :    Dharmendra Kumar Patel
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)           :    G.A.

Court No. - 84
                    HON'BLE PRASHANT MISHRA-I, J.

1. Heard Sri Dharmendra Kumar Patel, learned counsel for the applicants
and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. This application has been filed by the applicants to quash the
summoning order dated 10.10.2017 passed by learned Civil Judge (S.D.)/
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandausi at Sambhal as well as to
quash the proceeding of Complaint Case No. 32 of 2017 (New Complaint
Case No. 1695 of 2022), (Anjita Vs Amit Chauhan and others), Under
Sections 498A,323,504, 506 I.P.C & Section 3/4 D.P. Act Police Station-
Bahjoi, District- Chandausi.

3. On the matter being taken up, learned counsel for the applicants has not
pressed the relief as sought by means of this application on merit and
prayed for issuance of appropriate direction to the concerned Court to
decide the bail application of the applicants expeditiously, if preferred.

4. Learned A.G.A. has no objection in allowing the aforesaid prayer of the
applicants.

5. Accordingly, the relief as sought by the applicants through this
application is refused.

6. Considering the aforesaid alternative prayer of the applicants, it is
directed that applicants shall surrender before the concerned Court within
four weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order, and
                                                                                           NA528 No. 33649 of 2026
                                                                   2


                                    in case apply for bail, the bail application shall be decided expeditiously
                                    by the concerned court in accordance with law laid down by the Apex
                                    Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of
                                    Investigation and another, reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 922.

                                    7. For the period of four weeks from the date of production of certified
                                    copy of this order or till the time of surrender of the applicants before the
                                    concerned court, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken
                                    against them.

                                    8. With the aforesaid directions, this application stands disposed of.



                                                                                        (Prashant Mishra-I,J.)
                                    September 17, 2026
                                    Saurabh




Digitally signed by :-
SAURABH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.