GHANSHYAM YADAV v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. HOME LKO. AND ANOTHER
/8019/2025 · 2025-09-23
Saurabh Lavania
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 165861 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 165861 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8019 of 2025 Court No. - 11 HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant(s) and learned AGA for the State as well as perused the record. 2. The present application has been preferred seeking following main relief(s):-
"Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 53534 of 2022; Shushma Singh Vs. Ghanshyam Singh, Under Section 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Police Station: Shushant Golf City, District: Lucknow pending in the court of Learned Additional Court, Court No. 7, Lucknow as well as the summoning order dated 17.10.2022 and Non Bailable Warrant order dated 18.06.2025 passed by Learned Additional Court, Court No. 7, Lucknow (contained as Annexure No. 1 & 2), in the interest of Justice."
3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicant(s) submitted that at this stage, he is confining his prayer to seek the benefit of the judgment(s) passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2022) 10 S.C.R. 351 : (2022) 10 SCC 51 and Musheer Alam vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 116 for which liberty may be given to the applicant(s) and liberty may also be given to the applicant(s) to approach this Court again at appropriate stage for seeking appropriate relief. 4. Learned AGA has no objection to the prayer made by learned counsel for the applicant(s). 5. Keeping in view the aforesaid, the present application is disposed of with liberty as prayed for. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ashok Narayan Tripathi, Durgesh Kumar Singh, Sunil Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Ghanshyam Yadav .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s)
6. Taking note of the facts of the case and also the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil (Supra) and Musheer Alam (Supra), this Court is of the view that it would be appropriate to observe that it is expected from the Police Officer concerned that for a period of 30 days from today, they would not take any coercive action against the applicant(s) in the aforesaid case.
It is made clear that in this regard, no application shall be entertained. September 23, 2025 Arun/- A482 No. 8019 of 2025 2 (Saurabh Lavania,J.) Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR GANGWAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench