Allahabad High Court

ROHIT RAJAK @ SONUversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 18 March 2026
Bench: NAND PRABHA SHUKLA

Holding

The Court held that the application for quashing cannot be entertained as no abuse of process or failure of justice was shown and the matters involve disputed facts.

Summary

The applicant filed an application under Section 528 of the CrPC seeking to quash the summoning order and the criminal proceedings initiated under IPC sections 452, 323 and 504. The High Court examined the record and observed that the dispute revolves around factual issues that cannot be decided at this interlocutory stage. The Court held that a quash order can be granted only where there is a clear failure of justice or abuse of process, which was not demonstrated. Consequently, the prayer for quashing was declined. However, the Court directed that if the applicant seeks discharge or bail, the trial court must consider such applications within specified time‑frames and refrain from taking coercive measures pending disposal.

Issues considered

Whether an application under Section 528 CrPC can be entertained to quash criminal proceedings when the factual disputes are unresolved
Whether there is an abuse of process or failure of justice justifying quash of the proceedings

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528
Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 452, 504

Subjects

Section 528 CrPC
quash of criminal proceedings
private complaint
IPC 452
IPC 323
IPC 504
abuse of process
bail
discharge

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 8536 of 2026

Rohit Rajak @ Sonu
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Devendra Mani Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Piyush Kumar Shukla

Court No. - 76
HON'BLE NAND PRABHA SHUKLA, J.

1. Heard Mr. D. M. Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Piyush
Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2, learned A.G.A.
for the State and perused the record.

2. The present application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed with a
prayer to allow this application and quash the summoning order dated
02.12.2025 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court
No. 1, Jhansi in Complaint Case No. 1232/2024 (Mahendra Kumar Rajak
Vs. Rohit Rajak @ Sonu and others), under Sections 452, 323 and 504 of
I.P.C., Police Station-Premnagar, District- Jhansi, and also quash the entire
criminal proceedings of Complaint Case No. 1232/2024 (Mahendra Kumar
Rajak Vs. Rohit Rajak @ Sonu and others), under sections 452, 323 and 504
of I.P.C., Police Station- Premnagar, District-Jhansi, pending before the
learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Jhansi.

3. From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the
case, at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the
applicants. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed
questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court. Only in
cases where the Court finds that there has been failure of justice or abuse of
procedure, this power may be exercised to prevent the abuse of process to
secure the ends of justice.

4. Accordingly, prayer for quashing is declined.
NA528 No. 8536 of 2026
2

5. However, in the interest of justice as the matter pertains to warrant case
instituted on private complaint, it is provided that in case the applicants
claim discharge at an appropriate stage through counsel, the same shall be
disposed of by the Trial Court in accordance with law after giving
opportunity of hearing to both the parties by a reasoned and speaking order
within six weeks from the date of the application, if there is no other legal
impediment.

6. In case, the applicants are not on bail, it is further directed that if the
applicants appear or surrender through counsel before the Trial Court and
makes an application for bail within 45 days from the date of the order, the
same shall be considered and disposed of expeditiously, after giving
opportunity to the other side.

7. Till the disposal of the discharge application, no coercive measures shall
be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case.

8.With the aforesaid direction, this application is disposed of.

(Nand Prabha Shukla,J.)
March 19, 2026
Aditya Tripathi

Digitally signed by :-
ADITYA TRIPATHI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…