Allahabad High Court
VINOD KUMAR AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- NAND PRABHA SHUKLA
Holding
The impugned order is not illegal and the application under Section 528 CrPC is dismissed.
Summary
The applicants, Vinod Kumar and another, filed an application under Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to set aside an order dated 16 May 2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge in a trial concerning offences under Sections 452, 307, 506, 34 and 120B of the IPC. The court noted that charges had already been framed against the accused on 20 September 2023, and the applicants subsequently filed a discharge application, which the court viewed as a deliberate attempt to delay the proceedings. The judge examined whether there was any illegality in the impugned order and found none. Consequently, the application to set aside the order was dismissed. The decision underscores that a discharge application after framing of charges does not, by itself, render the earlier order illegal.
Issues considered
- Whether the order dated 16 May 2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge can be set aside on the ground of illegality.
- Whether filing a discharge application after charges have been framed constitutes a procedural illegality warranting interference.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 307, 34, 452, 506
Subjects
- Section 528 CrPC
- discharge application
- framing of charges
- procedural delay
- criminal trial
- appeal dismissed
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 6677 of 2026
Vinod Kumar And Another
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Tinku Singh, Vijay Singh Gour
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 76
HON'BLE NAND PRABHA SHUKLA, J.
1. Heard Mr. Vijay Singh Gaur, learned counsel for the applicants at
length, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
2. The present application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed with a
prayer to set aside the impugned dated 16.05.2025 passed by the
Additional and Sessions Judge, Room No. 21, Prayagraj in Sessions Trial
No. 1034 of 2023 (State v. Jitendra Kumar and others) arising out of Case
Crime No. 403 of 2017 under Sections 452, 307, 506, 34 and 120B IPC,
Police Station-Dhoomanganj, District-Allahabad.
3. From perusal of the record, it transpires that in the instant matter,
charges were already framed against the applicants-accused on
20.09.2023 under Sections 307, 452, 506, 34 and 120B IPC. Despite there
being order framing charges, the applicants had moved the discharge
application, which appears to be a deliberate attempt to delay the
proceedings. There is no illegality in the order impugned. Therefore, no
interference is required for.
4. The present application is accordingly, dismissed.
(Nand Prabha Shukla,J.)
February 17, 2026
Aditya Tripathi
Digitally signed by :-
ADITYA TRIPATHI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…