Allahabad High Court
PREETIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- SAURABH SRIVASTAVA
Holding
The High Court dismissed the application, holding that the matter must be decided by the trial court and it lacks jurisdiction to quash the order on mere apprehension of future crime.
Summary
The applicant, Preeti, filed an application under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking to quash an order dated 16 March 2026 issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hapur, which directed the transfer of a disputed amount from her account to the second opposite party in a criminal case (Crime No. 221 of 2025). The order arose from a miscellaneous case (No. 95 of 2026) involving offences under sections 318(4), 316(2), 115(2), 352 and 351(2) of the BNS. The High Court held that the prayer was misconceived because the issue of ethical conduct and the alleged risk of future crime must be decided by the trial court where the criminal case is pending. The Court emphasized that it cannot intervene on the basis of apprehension or presumptions of future wrongdoing. Consequently, the application under Section 528 BNSS was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can entertain an application under Section 528 BNSS to quash an order directing transfer of funds in a pending criminal case.
- Whether anticipatory jurisdiction exists to intervene based on presumed future criminal conduct.
- Whether the cause of action lies before the trial court and not before the High Court.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act (BNSS) — s. 528
- Bihar Penal Code (BNS) — s. 115(2), 316(2), 318(4), 351(2), 352
Subjects
- quash order
- Section 528 BNSS
- anticipatory jurisdiction
- criminal procedure
- High Court jurisdiction
- transfer of funds
- ethical conduct
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 12995 of 2026
Preeti
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Abhishek Tripathi, Ajeet
Kumar Pandey, Akhilesh
Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Ajay Kumar Srivastava,
G.A.
Court No. - 79
HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for applicant, Sri Ajay Kumar
Srivastava, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned
AGA for State.
2. Present application has been preferred with prayer to quash
order dated 16.3.2026 passed by learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Hapur in Misc. Case no. 95 of 2026 (State vs. Anil
and others) arising out of Case Crime no. 221 of 2025 under
sections 318(4), 316(2), 115(2), 352, 351(2) BNS, PS-
Babugarh, District Hapur whereby direction has been issued to
transfer the disputed amount in question from account of
applicant to account of opposite party no. 2.
3. The prayer as made through instant application is
misconceived. The proper adjudication of the prayer which has
been raised through instant application is need not to be
interfered since cause of action, if arises in favour of the
applicants for seeking similar prayer lies before learned trial
court itself where the matter is pending in shape of Case Crime
no. 221 of 2025, since the cause as shown for seeking prayer as
made through instant application is related to ethical behaviour
which has been warranted from the opposite party no. 2 so that
NA528 No. 12995 of 2026
2
he may not commit any crime in future. No adjudication before
this Court is maintainable at the behest of apprehension and
presumptions or any threat to commit certain further crime in
future.
4. The instant application u/s 528 BNSS stands dismissed.
September 9, 2026
Shaswat
(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SHASWAT SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…