Allahabad High Court
SATISH KUMAR GOYAL AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- SAURABH SRIVASTAVA
Holding
The court set aside the charge‑sheet and cognizance order against Applicants 1 and 2, while granting Applicant 3 a one‑month liberty to appear, and allowed the correction of the prayer clause, thereby partly allowing the application under Section 528 BNSS.
Summary
The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking correction of a mis‑transcribed section and to challenge the charge‑sheet, cognizance order and related proceedings in Case No. 3848 of 2026 (State vs. Moon Goyal et al.) arising from Crime No. 255 of 2025. The contention was that Applicant 3 had executed a sale deed of a mortgaged property without the consent of the Uttar Pradesh Housing and Development Board, which held the first charge, and that Applicants 1 and 2 were bona‑fide purchasers. The court examined the mortgage deed, noting that Applicant 3 was a director of the mortgagor company, and held that the proceedings could not be maintained against Applicants 1 and 2. Consequently, the charge‑sheet and cognizance order were set aside insofar as Applicants 1 and 2, while Applicant 3 was given a one‑month liberty to appear before the magistrate court. The application under Section 528 was partly allowed and all pending applications therein were disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the charge‑sheet, cognizance order and proceedings in Case No. 3848 of 2026 can be set aside with respect to Applicants 1 and 2.
- Whether Applicant 3 is entitled to liberty to appear before the magistrate court and protection from coercive action.
- Whether the mis‑transcription of a section in the prayer clause warrants correction under Section 528 of the BNSS.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Narcotic Substances and Substances Act (BNSS) — s. 316(5), 336, 338, 528, 61(2)
Subjects
- Section 528 application
- charge‑sheet set‑aside
- mortgage and sale deed
- bona‑fide purchaser
- cognizance order
- liberty to appear
- correction of prayer clause
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 14643 of 2026
Satish Kumar Goyal And 2 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Hariom Kamal Singh, Varad Nath
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Bharat Bhushan Paul, G.A., Ravi Anand
Agarwal, Saurabh Paul
Court No. - 77
HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. Heard Sri Vinay Saran, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Hariom
Kamal Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Rahul Agarwal,
learned counsel assisted by Sri Ravi Anand Agarwal, learned counsel for
opposite party no.2.
2. At the very outset, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of
applicants submits that one section has been wrongly transcribed at the time
of preparing instant application and as such he may be granted permission to
correct the same.
3. Prayer as made is hereby allowed.
4. Let necessary correction be carried out in the prayer clause of instant
application by learned counsel for the applicants during the course of day.
5. The instant application has been preferred for challenging the charge-
sheet dated 05.10.2025, cognizance/summoning order dated 18.02.2026 and
the entire proceedings of Case No.3848 of 2026 (State vs. Moon Goyal and
Others) arising out of Case Crime No.255 of 2025, under sections 316(5),
336, 338, 61(2) BNS, P.S. Sikandara, District- Agra, pending in the court of
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra.
6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants submits that
the allegation which has been fastened against applicant no.3 that he has
executed registered sale deed in favour of applicant nos.1 and 2 for the same
property, which has been mortgaged before Uttar Pradesh Housing and
NA528 No. 14643 of 2026
2
Development Board and once the property which was under the mortgage, it
is opposite party no.2, i.e., Uttar Pradesh Housing and Development Board
having first charge over the property and without taking consent or proper
permission, the same property cannot be transferred by way of executing
sale deed at the behest of applicant no.3 in favour of applicant nos.1 and 2.
7. By bare perusal of mortgage deed provided by learned counsel for
opposite party no.2, it is crystal clear that although name of applicant no.3 is
not available in the mortgage deed, but the various person on behalf of
company, i.e., M/s Bharat Nagar Housing entered as one of the party in the
mortgage deed at the behest of company in which applicant no.3 is one of
the directors and the same facts has not been disputed by learned counsel for
the applicants also.
8. So far as applicant nos.1 and 2 is concerned, they are only the purchasers
of the property which was mortgaged before opposite party no.2 and there
was hardly any entry available in the revenue records in pursuance to
mortgaged and as such the after effect of registered sale deed executed in
favour of applicant nos.1 and 2 will be subject matter of legal recourse
whatsoever lies in favour of opposite party no.2, but so far as in respect of
allegation as fastened at the behest of opposite party no.2 by way of lodging
FIR registered at Case Crime No.255 of 2025, under sections 316(5), 336,
338, 61(2) BNS, the same are not attracted in respect of applicant nos.1 and
2, since they are under the capacity of bona fide on the basis of entries
available in record.
9. After hearing rival submissions extended by learned counsel for the
parties, this Court finds that implication of applicant nos.1 and 2 in respect
of cognizance of offence taken up by learned court concerned vide order
dated 18.02.2026 over the charge-sheet dated 05.10.2025 is not at all
maintainable and the same is bad in the eye of law.
10. In view of above facts and circumstances of the case, the entire
proceedings in shape of Case No.3848 of 2026 (State vs. Moon Goyal and
Others) arising out of Case Crime No.255 of 2025, under sections 316(5),
336, 338, 61(2) BNS, P.S. Sikandara, District- Agra, pending in the court of
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra, including charge-sheet dated
05.10.2025 and cognizance/summoning order dated 18.02.2026 are hereby
set-aside only in respect of applicant nos.1 and 2.
NA528 No. 14643 of 2026
3
11. So far as applicant no.3 is concerned, liberty is hereby extended in his
favour to put his appearance before learned court concerned in pursuance to
cognizance/summoning order dated 18.02.2026 within a period of one
month from today. Till the period extended above, no coercive action shall
be initiated against applicant no.3. It is also directed to learned court
concerned that if the applicant no.3 preferred bail application at the time of
appearance within stipulated time as mentioned above, the same shall be
considered in accordance with law.
12. Accordingly, the instant application u/s 528 BNSS is partly allowed and
all the pending applications filed in this application u/s 528 BNSS stands
disposed of.
May 7, 2026
Saif
(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…