Allahabad High Court
ANIL KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- SAURABH SRIVASTAVA
Holding
The application under Section 528 BNSS is dismissed as the relief sought is not maintainable before this Court and must be addressed by the trial court handling the substantive criminal case.
Summary
The applicant, Anil Kumar, filed an application under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking to quash an order dated 16 March 2026 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hapur, which directed the transfer of a disputed amount from his account to that of the opposite party. The order arose from a criminal case (Crime No. 221 of 2025) involving alleged offences under Sections 318(4), 316(2), 115(2), 352 and 351(2) of the Indian Penal Code. The Court held that the application was misconceived because the relief sought pertained to conduct and ethical behaviour of the opposite party, which could only be addressed by the trial court where the substantive criminal case is pending. The High Court observed that anticipatory relief based on apprehension of future crime is not maintainable in this forum. Consequently, the application under Section 528 was dismissed.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate forum for seeking a quash order of a direction to transfer disputed funds in a pending criminal case?
- Whether an application under Section 528 BNSS can be entertained when the relief sought relates to future conduct and ethical behaviour of the opposite party.
Legislation cited
- BNSS — s. 528
- Indian Penal Code — s. 115, 316, 318, 351, 352
Subjects
- quash order
- Section 528 BNSS
- criminal proceeding
- anticipatory relief
- ethical behaviour
- future crime
- High Court of Allahabad
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 13327 of 2026
Anil Kumar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Abhishek Tripathi, Akhilesh
Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Ajay Kumar Srivastava,
G.A., Imran Syed
Court No. - 79
HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for applicant, Sri Imran Syed and 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
he may not commit any crime in future. No adjudication before
NA528 No. 13327 of 2026
2
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…