Allahabad High Court

SIMRAN SINGHALversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 7 September 2026
Bench: DEEPAK VERMA

Holding

The High Court held that there was no clear abuse of process and therefore the application under Section 528 Cr.P.C. to quash the summoning order and proceedings was dismissed.

Summary

The applicant Simran Singhal filed a Section 528 application seeking to quash a summoning order dated 25‑01‑2024 issued by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate‑III, Gautam Budh Nagar, and the pending criminal case (Complaint No.1964 of 2023) under Section 406 IPC. The applicant alleged innocence, claiming the complaint was false, baseless and filed with malicious intent, and argued that the summoning order was passed without judicial mind. The State contended that material evidence established a cognizable offence and that the proceedings were not an abuse of process. The High Court observed that appreciation of evidence is the trial court’s function and that Section 528 cannot be invoked at the pre‑trial stage unless there is a clear abuse of process, which was not evident. Consequently, the Court refused to quash the summoning order, directed the applicant to move a discharge application within two weeks, and dismissed the Section 528 application.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court can quash a summoning order and pending criminal proceedings under Section 528 Cr.P.C. at the pre‑trial stage
Whether the proceedings constitute an abuse of the process of the court
Whether the court may interfere with the trial court’s appreciation of evidence at the stage of summoning

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 244, 482, 528
Indian Penal Code — s. 406

Subjects

Section 528 Cr.P.C.
Section 482 Cr.P.C.
pre‑trial jurisdiction
quash of criminal proceedings
abuse of process
summoning order
criminal breach of trust
high court

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 37207 of 2026

Simran Singhal
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anil Kumar Jaiswal
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 74
HON'BLE DEEPAK VERMA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for applicants; learned A.G.A. for State and perused the
record.

2. Present 528 B.N.S.S. application has been filed to quash the summoning order
dated 25.01.2024 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-IIIrd, Gautam Budh
Nagar as well as entire proceeding of Complaint Case No.1964 of 2023 (S.Y. Interiors
Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Simran Singhal) under section 406 IPC, Police Station Phase-1 Noida,
District Gautam Budh Nagar, pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge (S.D.)-II,
Gautam Budh Nagar.

3. Counsel for the applicant submitted that applicants are innocent and have been
falsely implicated in the present case. Present complaint is false, baseless and has been
lodged with malicious intention only to harass the applicant. Prima facie, no offence is
made out against the applicants.The summoning order passed by learned Magistrate, is
without application of judicial mind and the same is liable to be quashed.

4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State submitted that considering the material
evidences and allegations against the applicants on record, as on date, as per
prosecution case, the cognizable offence against the applicants is made out. Under the
facts and circumstances of the present case as well as materials on record against the
applicants, the criminal proceedings against the applicants cannot be said to be abuse
of process of Court. There is no illegality in the impugned summoning order and
instant application is liable to be dismissed.

5. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the entire
NA528 No. 37207 of 2026
2

record, this Court is of the view that it is well settled that the appreciation of evidence
is a function of the trial court. This Court in exercise of power under Section 482
Cr.P.C. cannot assume such jurisdiction and put an end to the process of trial provided
under the law. It is also settled by the Apex Court in catena of judgments that the
power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. at pre-trial stage should not be used in a routine
manner but it has to be used sprangly, only in such an appropriate case, where on the
face of record, the criminal proceeding is clear abuse of the process of the Court. The
disputed questions of facts and defence of the accused cannot be taken into
consideration at this pre-trial stage.

6. On perusal of record, it is apparent that proceedings before the trial court is in
advance stage and statement of prosecution/complainant witnesses are being recorded
under Section 244 Cr.P.C. At this stage, the Court in not inclined to interfere with the
proceedings. It is also well settled that at the stage of summoning the accused, the
court concerned is not required to go into the merit and demerit of the case.
Genuineness or otherwise of the allegation cannot be even determined at the stage of
summoning the accused. There is no good ground to invoke inherent power under
Section 528 BNSS by this Court at this stage. The relief as claimed by the applicant
through this application is refused.

7. The defence version of the applicant has to be considered by the court concerned at
the appropriate stage. The accused/applicant has statutory remedy of moving
discharge application before the court concerned at the appropriate stage.

8. Considering the material on record, it is directed that, if objection/discharge
application is filed on behalf of the applicants before the court concerned within two
weeks, it is expected that the court concerned will consider and decide the same
expeditiously within a period of six weeks, in accordance with law.

9. With the aforesaid observations/directions, this application under Section 528
BNSS stands disposed of.

(Deepak Verma,J.)
September 8, 2026
Meenu Singh

Digitally signed by :-
MEENU SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…