Allahabad High Court
VINODA DEVI AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- SAURABH SRIVASTAVA
Holding
The application for quash of the chargesheet and cognizance order is dismissed as no ground for interference under Section 528 CrPC is found.
Summary
The petitioners Vinoda Devi and three others filed an application under Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash the chargesheet dated 5 August 2023 and the cognizance and summoning order dated 20 August 2025 in Criminal Case No. 345 of 2025, which alleged offences under Sections 325, 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. The High Court examined the FIR, the impugned order and the chargesheet and concluded that none of the grounds for interference under Section 528 were made out. Consequently, the court refused the prayer to set aside the chargesheet and the proceedings. The court, however, directed that the petitioners may surrender within four weeks and apply for bail, and that no coercive action be taken against them during that period, referring to the Supreme Court decision in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI for guidance on bail. The application was therefore dismissed with the above directions.
Issues considered
- Whether the chargesheet and cognizance order can be quashed under Section 528 CrPC
- Whether any ground for interference with the proceedings exists
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 325, 504
Subjects
- quash of chargesheet
- Section 528 CrPC
- bail
- cognizance order
- IPC offences
- High Court
- application dismissed
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 38042 of 2026
Vinoda Devi And 3 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rakesh Kumar Singh, Ravendra Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 79
HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for parties.
2. Present application has been preferred with the prayer to quash the
chargesheet dated 5.8.2023 and cognizance/summoning order dated
20.8.2025 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-IV, Prayagraj as well as
entire proceedings of Case no. 345 of 2025 (State of U.P. vs. Vinoda Devi
and others) arising out of Case Crime no. 0084 of 2023, under Sections 325,
323, 504 IPC, P.S.- Phoolpur, District Prayagraj.
3. On perusal of the narration of FIR as well as impugned order and
chargesheet, 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, chargesheet and entire
proceeding, 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 surrender before the court concerned and apply for
bail to which learned AGA has no objection.
6. In view of the aforesaid, the instant application is finally disposed of with
a direction to the court concerned that in case, the applicants surrender
before the court concerned within a period of four weeks from today and
apply for bail and if there is no other legal impediment before court
NA528 No. 38042 of 2026
2
concerned, their bail application shall be considered and decided
expeditiously in accordance with law laid down in the case of Satender
Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another (2022
SCC OnLine SC 825).
7. However, it is made clear that till four weeks from today, no coercive
action shall be taken against applicants herein in pursuance of aforesaid case.
September 17, 2026
Shaswat
(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SHASWAT SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…