Allahabad High Court
TUSHARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- SAURABH SRIVASTAVA
Holding
The court held that there is no ground for interference and refused to quash the charge sheet and cognizance order.
Summary
The applicant Tushar filed an application under Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking the quashing of a charge sheet dated 27‑09‑2021 and the cognizance order dated 03‑12‑2022 in State v. Ajay Goswami (Case No. 27644 of 2022), which alleged offences under Sections 323, 325 and 506 of the IPC. The High Court examined the FIR and the impugned orders and found no material to justify interference or to set aside the charge sheet. Consequently, the court refused the prayer for quashing. The court, however, directed that the applicant may surrender within 15 days and apply for bail, with no coercive action to be taken against him during that period, citing the Supreme Court decision in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI. The application was therefore dismissed with directions for surrender and bail consideration.
Issues considered
- Whether the charge sheet and cognizance order can be quashed under Section 528 CrPC?
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 325, 506
Subjects
- Section 528 CrPC
- quashing of charge sheet
- IPC offences
- bail
- coercive action
- High Court of Allahabad
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 14257 of 2026
Tushar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Santosh Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 77
HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for parties.
2. This present application has been filed for seeking quashing of charge
sheet dated 27.9.2021 along with cognizance/summoning order dated
3.12.2022 and entire proceeding of Case No. 27644 of 2022 (State Vs. Ajay
Goswami and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 231 of 2021, under
Sections 323, 325, 506 IPC, P.S. Bhavanpur, District Meerut.
3. On perusal of the narration of FIR as well as impugned order and
chargesheet, this Court does not find it to be a case where interference of this
Court is required. No such ground appears to be available in the present
application, on the basis of which, impugned order along with chargesheet,
can be set aside.
4. Accordingly, the prayer sought through the instant application, is refused.
5. Lastly, learned counsel for applicant has submitted that liberty may be
granted to applicant to surrender before the court concerned and apply for
bail to which learned AGA has no objection.
6. In view of the aforesaid, the instant application is finally disposed of with
a direction to the court concerned that in case, the applicant surrender before
the court concerned within a period of 15 days from today and apply for bail
and if there is no other legal impediment before court concerned, his bail
application shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with
NA528 No. 14257 of 2026
2
law laid down in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation and another (2022 SCC OnLine SC 825).
7. However, it is made clear that till 15 days from today, no coercive action
shall be taken against applicant herein in pursuance of aforesaid case.
(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)
May 7, 2026
Shaswat
Digitally signed by :-
SHASWAT SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…