Allahabad High Court
NA528/43884/2026 of SEEMA RAO @ ANANDI DIDI Vs STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER on 7 October 2026
JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 43884 of 2026 Court No. - 72 HON'BLE DEEPAK VERMA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant; learned AGA for the State and perused the material available on record. 2. The present application has been filed to quash the summoning order
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 43884 of 2026
Court No. - 72
HON'BLE DEEPAK VERMA, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant; learned AGA for the State and perused the material available on record.
2. The present application has been filed to quash the summoning order dated 16.09.2025 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 4. Ghaziabad and entire proceeding of Complaint Case No.2683 of 2024, under Sections 318 (4), 308 (6) B.N.S. (corresponding Section 420 & 389 IPC) Police Station-Nand Gram, District-Ghaziabad.
3. Counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. On perusal of complaint as well as statement recorded under Sections 223 BNSS and 225 BNSS,, no criminal offence is made out against the applicant. The cognizance/summoning order passed by learned Magistrate, is without application of judicial mind and the same is liable to be quashed.
4. On perusal of record, it is apparent that proceedings before the trial court is posted for recording of evidence under Section 244 Cr.P.C. The proceedings before trial court is in advance stage. At this stage, the Court in not inclined to interfere with the proceedings. The prayer for quashing of the proceedings is refused.
5. However, it is directed that if objection/discharge application is filed on behalf of the applicant at appropriate stage, the trial court shall decide the same within a period of six weeks. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Shivakant Mishra, Tiwari Ajay Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Seema Rao @ Anandi Didi .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s)
6. With the aforesaid observations/directions, this application stands disposed of. October 8, 2026 Meenu Singh NA528 No. 43884 of 2026 2 (Deepak Verma,J.) Digitally signed by :- MEENU SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad