Allahabad High Court

YOGENDRA @ YOGENDRA VARSHNEY AND 7 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 7 September 2026
Bench: DEEPAK VERMA

Holding

The High Court held that at the pre‑trial stage the court cannot use its inherent power under Section 528 CrPC to quash a summoning order, as the merits must be determined by the trial court and the proceeding is not an abuse of process.

Summary

The applicants filed a Section 528 B.N.S.S. application seeking to quash the summoning order dated 06‑06‑2024 and the entire proceedings of a criminal complaint pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasganj. They alleged false implication and argued that the summons were issued 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 held that appreciation of evidence is the trial court’s function and that the inherent power under Section 528 CrPC cannot be exercised at the pre‑trial stage to halt the process, especially when the merits have not been examined. Consequently, the application to quash the summons was refused, with directions that the applicants may file a discharge application within two weeks for the trial court to consider.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court can invoke its inherent power under Section 528 CrPC to quash a summoning order at the pre‑trial stage.
Whether the criminal proceedings constitute an abuse of the process of the court.
Whether the merits of the case can be examined by the appellate court at the stage of summoning.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 244, 482, 528
Indian Penal Code — s. 147, 323, 504, 506

Subjects

Section 528 CrPC
Section 482 CrPC
quash of summons
pre‑trial jurisdiction
abuse of process
criminal procedure
discharge application

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 37273 of 2026

Yogendra @ Yogendra Varshney And 7 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sunil Kumar, Tushar Krishnani
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 06.06.2024 passed by the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Kasganj as well as the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 9760 of
2023 (Akash Vs. Yogendra and others) under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506
IPC, Police Station Kasganj, District, Kasganj, pending in the court of Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Kasganj.

3. Counsel for the applicant submitted that applicants are innocent and have
been falsely implicated in the present case. Present complaint has been
lodged in counter to the F.I.R. lodged by the applicants against the opposite
party no.2. 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.
NA528 No. 37273 of 2026
2

5. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the
entire 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 statement of
prosecution/complainant witnesses are being recorded under Section 244
Cr.P.C. 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…