Allahabad High Court

AJIT SINGH BANSAL AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

Decided: 22 September 2026
Bench: DEEPAK VERMA

Holding

The summoning order was unsustainable and is hereby quashed.

Summary

The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. seeking to quash a summons dated 08.07.2026 issued by the Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate, F.T.C., Ghaziabad in Complaint Case No.42088 of 2025. They contended that the summons under Sections 316(2) and 318(4) B.N.S.S. was issued without applying a judicial mind, without notice or hearing as required by Section 223(1) B.N.S.S., and that a witness (Kamal Jain) was improperly summoned. The applicants also argued that proceedings under IPC Sections 420 and 406 could not run jointly, relying on the Apex Court’s decision in Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024). The Court agreed that the magistrate had not complied with the procedural safeguards and that the Apex Court precedent barred the joint trial. Consequently, the summons order was quashed and the matter remanded to the magistrate to pass a fresh order within eight weeks, in line with the Apex Court ruling. The application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. was therefore allowed.

Issues considered

Whether a summons under Sections 316(2) and 318(4) B.N.S.S. can be issued without notice and hearing as mandated by Section 223(1) B.N.S.S.
Whether proceedings under IPC Sections 420 and 406 may be conducted jointly in light of the Delhi Race Club decision
Whether a witness can be summoned as an accused under the same order

Legislation cited

B.N.S.S. — s. 223(1), 225, 316(2), 318(4), 351(2), 352
Indian Penal Code — s. 406, 420

Subjects

summons
Section 528
B.N.S.S.
procedural fairness
joint trial
IPC 420
IPC 406
Delhi Race Club case
quash order
judicial mind

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 40604 of 2026

Ajit Singh Bansal And Another
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sanjiv Kumar Dwivedi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 74

HON'BLE DEEPAK VERMA, J.

1. Supplementary affidavit filed today on behalf of the applicants, is taken
on record.

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

3. The present application u/s 528 B.N.S.S. has been filed with prayer to
quash the summoning order dated 08.07.2026 passed by Civil Judge
(Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, F.T.C., Ghaziabad as well as entire
proceedings of Complaint Case No.42088 of 2025 (M/s Classic
Enterprises and others vs. Ajit Singh Bansal and others), under Sections
316(2), 318(4), 352, 351(2) B.N.S., 2023, P.S. Shalimar Garden, District
Ghaziabad, pending in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial
Magistrate, F.T.C., Ghaziabad.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that summoning by learned
magistrate is without application of judicial mind and is liable to be set
aside. Applicants have been summoned under sections 316(2) and 318(4)
B.N.S. Learned counsel for the applicants next submitted that proceedings
under Sections 420 and 406 I.P.C. cannot run jointly in view of the
judgment of Apex Court in Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. vs. The State
of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2248. He next argued
that applicants were not given any notice nor heard before taking
cognizance as per provision provided under section 223(1) B.N.S.S. He
next submitted that the present complaint has been filed arraigning
Kamal Jain as accused no.3. The complainant has produced Kamal Jain as
witness of the case and learned magistrate has recorded statement under
NA528 No. 40604 of 2026
2

section 225 B.N.S.S.

5. Learned AGA opposed the submission raised by learned counsel for
the applicant.

6. Considering the argument raised by applicants' counsel. Summons have
been issued against all the accused persons including witness Kamal Jain.
Moreover, learned magistrate has summoned the applicants under
sections 316(2) and 318(4) B.N.S. in view of the judgment of Apex Court
in Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.,
2024 SCC OnLine SC 2248. Summoning by learned magistrate is not
sustainable and moreover benefit of the provision under section 223(1)
B.N.S.S. has not been provided to the applicants.

7. Accordingly, the impugned summoning order dated 08.07.2026 passed
by the passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate,
F.T.C., Ghaziabad in Complaint Case No.42088 of 2025 (M/s Classic
Enterprises and others vs. Ajit Singh Bansal and others), under Sections
316(2), 318(4), 352, 351(2) B.N.S., 2023, P.S. Shalimar Garden, District
Ghaziabad, pending in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial
Magistrate, F.T.C., Ghaziabad is hereby quashed.

8. The matter is remanded back to learned Magistrate with direction that
learned Magistrate shall pass an appropriate order within eight weeks
from the date of production of certified copy of this order keeping in view
the order of Hon'ble The Apex Court passed in the case of Delhi Race
Club (supra) after hearing both the parties.

9. With aforesaid direction, the present application under Section 528
B.N.S.S. is accordingly allowed.

September 23, 2026
SKD
(Deepak Verma,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
SURJIT KUMAR DEY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…