Allahabad High Court
TANUJversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- SAURABH SRIVASTAVA
Holding
The application under Section 528 CrPC is dismissed as no sufficient ground for quashing the chargesheet or proceedings exists.
Summary
The applicant, Tanuj, filed an application under Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash the chargesheet dated 29‑09‑2024, the cognizance and summoning order dated 11‑02‑2025, and the entire proceedings of Case No. 90 of 2025 (State vs. Tanuj) arising from an FIR under Section 354 IPC. The High Court examined the FIR, the impugned order, the chargesheet and the victim’s statement and found no sufficient ground to interfere with the criminal proceedings. Consequently, the Court refused the prayer to quash the chargesheet and dismissed the application. The Court, however, directed that if the applicant surrenders within 15 days and applies for bail, the bail application should be decided expeditiously, citing the precedent of Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI. Until the 15‑day period expires, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant.
Issues considered
- What grounds, if any, exist under Section 528 CrPC to quash the chargesheet and proceedings in a case under Section 354 IPC?
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528
- Indian Penal Code — s. 354
Subjects
- quash of FIR
- Section 528 CrPC
- Section 354 IPC
- bail
- chargesheet
- High Court of Allahabad
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 15105 of 2026
Tanuj
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Babali, Pushpendra Kumar,
Ramdhan
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 77
HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned AGA
appearing for the State.
2. This present application has been filed for seeking quashing of
chargesheet dated 29.09.2024 along with cognizance/summoning
order dated 11.02.2025 and entire proceeding of Case No.90 of
2025 (State Vs. Tanuj), arising out of Case Crime No.54 of 2024,
under Section 354 IPC, P.S. Subhash Nagar, District Bareilly,
pending in the court of learned Judge Small Causes Court,
Bareilly.
3. On perusal of the narration of FIR as well as impugned order
and chargesheet along with statement of the victim, 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 and entire proceedings of the said case, 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
NA528 No. 15105 of 2026
2
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 surrenders before the court concerned within a
period of 15 days from today and applies for bail, his bail
application shall be considered and decided expeditiously in
accordance with 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.
May 6, 2026
Vivek Kr.
(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
VIVEK KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…