Allahabad High Court

MOHAN YADAV AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 5 May 2026
Bench: SAURABH SRIVASTAVA

Holding

The application under Section 528 CrPC seeking quash of the criminal proceedings is dismissed as it lacks merit.

Summary

The petitioners, Mohan Yadav and another, filed an application under Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking the quashing of Criminal Case No. 48807 of 2025 (State vs. Brijesh Pandey @ Lalbabu and Others). They argued that the FIR lacked corroborative evidence, the injury report did not support the charges under sections 115(2), 352 and 110 of the Indian Penal Code, and that the investigation did not establish any offence against them. The State opposed, contending that the victims were referred to a higher medical centre and that the application was unsupported by medical documents. The Court examined the record, found no merit in the petitioners' contentions, and held that the application could not be entertained. Consequently, the application for quashing the proceedings was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the criminal proceedings under sections 115(2), 352 and 110 IPC can be quashed under Section 528 CrPC on the ground of lack of corroborative evidence and injury.
Whether the injury reported in the FIR justifies the charge under section 110 IPC.
Whether the non‑appearance of opposite party No.2 affects the maintainability of the application.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528
Indian Penal Code — s. 110, 115(2), 352

Subjects

quash of criminal proceedings
Section 528 CrPC
lack of evidence
injury report
Indian Penal Code
application dismissed

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 11299 of 2026

Mohan Yadav And Another
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Aditya Yadav, Bhoodev Yadav, Shivam
Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 77
HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. This matter has been taken up in the date fixed category.

2. Heard Sri Aditya Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants and learned
AGA for State.

3. On previous occasion notices were issued to opposite party no.2 and the
same has been reported as served, when the matter has been taken up today
none appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2 either in person or through
counsel. No option left but to consider the prayer as made through instant
application on the basis of documents available in the records as well as
arguments raised by learned counsel for the applicant, although it is moral
and legal obligation upon the opposite party no.2 to put his appearance after
service of notice before any forum of law for protecting and defending the
case when the same has been challenged.

4. The instant application has been preferred for seeking quashing of entire
proceedings of Criminal Case No.48807 of 2025 (State vs. Brijesh Pandey
@ Lalbabu and Others) arising out of Case Crime No.241 of 2025, under
sections 115(2), 352, 110 BNS, P.S. Kasimabad, District- Ghazipur, pending
before learned court of ACJM, Ghazipur, including charge-sheet dated
19.08.2025 and cognizance/summoning order dated 06.11.2025.

5. While challenging the entire proceedings of above-mentioned case,
learned counsel for the applicants submits that there is hardly any
corroboration of evidence in respect of narration of FIR, if tallied with injury
report, which has been made part of the case diary at the time of conduction
NA528 No. 11299 of 2026
2

of investigation, whereupon charge-sheet has been submitted and the
applicant has been implicated in pursuance to sections 115(2), 352, 110
BNS. So far as section 110 BNS is concerned, learned counsel for applicants
submits that there is hardly any injury, which would attract implication of
applicant under section 110 BNS, but at the time of taking cognizance, in the
most mechanical manner applicant has been summoned in the above
sections. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that the entire
investigation does not lead any offence against the applicants as mentioned
in the narration of FIR, but in spite of that applicants have been put for trial
into unwarranted criminal litigation.

6. Per contra, learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer sought through
instant application and rebutted the stand taken up by learned counsel for the
applicants and sought the attention of this Court over the proceeding-sheet
no.7 dated 23.06.2025, through which it has been transpired that considering
the severity of the condition after sustaining injuries informant along with
her sister being the victim of the alleged incident has been referred to Higher
Medical Center at District Ghazipur. Learned AGA also submits that no
specific documents have been appended at the time of preferring instant
application in shape of treatment whatsoever has been carried out over the
victim at Higher Medical Center, District Ghazipur.

7. After hearing rival submissions extended by learned counsel for the
parties and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that no consideration can
be exceeded in pursuance to prayer as sought through instant application and
as such the instant application lacks merit.

8. Accordingly, the instant application is dismissed.

May 6, 2026
Saif
(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…