Allahabad High Court

FAIZAN KHANversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 28 September 2026
Bench: CHAWAN PRAKASH

Holding

The High Court held that the trial court correctly found a prima facie case and there was no jurisdictional error, so the Section 482 application was dismissed.

Summary

The applicant, Faizan Khan, filed a Section 482 application seeking to quash the charge sheet and proceedings in a Sessions trial for offences under Sections 387, 307 and 506 IPC, alleging false and fabricated allegations and lack of evidence. The trial court had earlier rejected his Section 227 discharge application, finding a prima facie case. The applicant contended that the FIR and witness statements were vague, no medical evidence or weapon was recovered, and the trial court failed to appreciate the facts. The State argued that the FIR contained specific allegations of extortion, threat to life and firing, and that the trial court was only required to assess whether a prima facie case existed. The High Court held that Section 482 is an extraordinary jurisdiction to be exercised sparingly and does not permit re‑appreciation of evidence; the trial court had correctly found a prima facie case and there was no jurisdictional error. Consequently, the application under Section 482 was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court can quash the charge sheet and proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. when the trial court has already rejected a discharge application.
Whether the trial court erred in its assessment of the prima facie case and the need to re‑appreciate evidence at the Section 482 stage.
Whether the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 permits interference with the trial court's discretion in a discharge application.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 161, 227, 482
Indian Penal Code — s. 307, 387, 506

Subjects

Section 482 CrPC
discharge application
prima facie case
inherent jurisdiction
criminal procedure
false implication
high court review

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 33627 of 2019

Faizan Khan
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Braj Mohan Singh, Love Lesh Kumar
Verma
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 83
HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J.

1. Heard Sri Braj Mohan Singh, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Kamal
Dev Rai, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

2. The present application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed
by the applicant with a prayer to quash the charge sheet No.215 of 2018
dated 22.12.2018 and order dated 16.8.2019 passed by District & Sessions
Judge, Banda and entire proceeding of Sessions Trial No.31 of 2019,
under Sections 387, 307, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Baberu, District Banda, pending
in the Court of District & Sessions Judge, Banda.

3. The brief facts of the case, are as that a First Information Report
registered as Case Crime No.265 of 2018, under Sections 387, 307 and
506 I.P.C., Police Station Baberu District Banda. After investigation
charge sheet was filed under Sections under Sections 387, 307, 506 I.P.C.
and the learned Magistrate took cognizance. The case was committed to
the Court of Sessions. The applicant filed an application under Section
227 Cr.P.C. seeking discharge, which was dismissed, vide order dated
16.8.2019.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been
falsely implicated and the allegations in the FIR and statements of the
witnesses are general omnibus, false and fabricated only to harass the
applicant. He submits that there is no medical evidence showing any
injury to the informant, no firearm or fired bullet/cartridge has been
A482 No. 33627 of 2019
2

recovered either from the spot or from the possession of the applicant, and
the alleged eye-witnesses are family members of the informant. There is
no independent witness to support the prosecution version. It is, therefore,
submitted that the material collected during investigation does not
disclose the commission of offences under Sections 387, 307 and 506 IPC
and the learned trial court has not considered the evidence available on
record and rejected the said application without appreciation of facts.
Learned counsel further submits that the learned trial court erred in law
while rejecting the application without proper appreciation of facts.
Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the submissions as
advanced by learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that the FIR
contains specific allegations against the applicant regarding demand of
Rs. 1,00,000/- as Gunda Tax, threat to life and firing upon the informant
with intention to kill him. The statements of witnesses recorded under
Section 161 Cr.P.C. also attribute specific overt acts to the applicant.
After completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted
charge sheet against the applciant. He further submits that at the stage of
deciding the discharge application, the court is not required to weigh the
evidence in golden scale and evaluate its proof but only to consider
whether a prima facie case is made out. Learned trial court has not
committed any illegality in passing the impugned order, therefore, this
application is liable to be dismissed.

6. The jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is an extra-ordinary
and must be exercised sparingly. If a trial court considers a discharge
application and found sufficient ground to proceed, the High Court, while
exercising for inherent jurisdiction, does not act as court of appeal or re-
appreciate the raw evidence. It is well settled principles of criminal
jurisprudence that at the state considering the discharge application, the
trial court has to evaluation whether there is a criminal acts (grave
suspicion) against the accused. The detailed evaluation of the statements,
the credibility of the statements and mini-trial are insuperable at this
juncture.

7. From the perusal of the charge sheet and statements recorded under
A482 No. 33627 of 2019
3

Section 161 Cr.P.C., it is clear that specific overt acts have been attributed
to the applicant regarding illegal demand, threat and firing with an
intention to cause death under Sections 387, 307, 506 I.P.C. These matters
of trial which requires examination of evidence on record.

8. In view of the material available on record, this Court finds that no
jurisdictional error, illegality or perversity in the order
dated 16.08.2019 passed by the learned trial court in rejecting the
discharge application. According to evidence, available on record, prima
facie case is made out.

9. Accordingly, the application being devoid of merit is dismissed.

10. It is made clear that any observation made herein are strictly for the
purpose of deciding this application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and
shall not influence on the trial court during conduct of the trial.

(Chawan Prakash,J.)
September 29, 2026
Md Faisal

Digitally signed by :-
MOHD FAISAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…