SHIV CHAUDHARY ALIAS SHIV KUMAR CHAUDHARY v. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
NA528/25548/2025 · 2025-08-17
Dinesh Pathak
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 74663 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 74663 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:140709 Court No. - 73 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 25548 of 2025 Applicant :- Shiv Chaudhary Alias Shiv Kumar Chaudhary Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rahul Singh Tomar Counsel for Opposite Party :- Sudhir Bharti,G.A. Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
1. Shri Sudhir Bharti, learned Advocate has filed memo of appearance on behalf of opposite party no.2, which is taken on record.
2. Office is directed to proceed accordingly.
3. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State.
4. Applicant has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 B.N.S.S. for quashing the impugned order dated 23.05.2023 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, SC/ST Act, District-Baghpat in Criminal Misc. Case No. 84 of 2023 (Vinod Kumar Vs. Shiv Chaudhary and others) u/s 342, 506 IPC and Section 3 (1)X SC/ST Act, Police Station Doghat, District Baghpat arising out of Case Crime No. 244 of 2018; and to stay the further proceedings against the applicant in the said case.
5. Opposite party no.2 has lodged an F.I.R., being Case Crime No. 0244 of 2018, dated 30.03.2018, under Sections 342, 506 I.P.C. and 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act. Investigating Officer, after due investigation, has submitted final/closure report No. 61 of 2018 dated 07.08.2018, registered as Misc. Application No. 37 of
2018. Learned Additional District Judge/Special Judge SC/ST Act, vide its order dated 16.12.2019, has accepted the aforesaid final report in absence of the first informant. At a belated stage, the first informant (O.P. No.2) has moved a miscellaneous application (paper no.3-Aa), registered as Misc. Case No. 84 of 2023, beseeching an opportunity to file a protest petition against the final report on the ground that no proper notice was served upon him, therefore, he could not come to know about the date fixed in the final report submitted by the I.O.; consequently, the
order dated 16.12.2019 has been passed.
6. Learned Additional District Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST
Act), vide order dated 23.05.2023, has recalled the order dated 16.12.2019 and directed the court concerned to pass a fresh
order after giving the applicant/first informant an opportunity of being heard. In pursuance of the order dated 23.05.2023, opposite party no.2 has filed the protest petition dated
09.06.2023. Learned Additional District Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), vide order dated 02.12.2023, has rejected the said final report and issued direction to register the protest petition as a complaint and fixed a date for statement u/s 200 Cr.P.C. After going through the complaint, learned court concerned has passed the summoning order dated 16.05.2025 against the present applicant. Thus, in the backdrop of the facts, order dated 23.05.2023, under challenged before this court, is redundant, inasmuch as the same has already been acted upon and, in compliance thereof, a protest petition has been filed which has been treated as complaint after the rejection of the final report. As such, present application has no legal sanctity in the eye of law.
7. In this conspectus as above, I do not find any justifiable ground to entertain the instant application and interfere in the
order dated 23.05.2023 passed by learned Additional District Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Baghpat. There is no illegality, perversity or irregularity in the order under challenge so as to warrant the indulgence of this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. There is nothing on record to demonstrate as to which legal provision has been violated or there is any abuse of process of law. Nothing has been demonstrated as to how present applicants are prejudiced, or if there is any likelihood of causing miscarriage of justice to him, owing to the order impugned.
8. Resultantly, the instant application under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., being misconceived and devoid of merits, is dismissed with no order as to cost.
Order Date :- 18.8.2025 Sumit K. Digitally signed by :- SUMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- SUMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad