Allahabad High Court
MOHD ZEESHAN @ ZEESHAN AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- SAURABH SRIVASTAVA
Holding
The court held that a prima facie case was made out against the applicants, so the order rejecting the discharge application cannot be quashed.
Summary
The applicants, Zeeshan and another, filed an application under Section 528 of the CrPC seeking to quash the order dated 13‑11‑2025 that rejected their discharge application in a case involving offences under Sections 323, 504, 506, 452, 325 and 308 IPC. They alleged false implication, collusion between the investigating officer and the alleged victim, and contradictions in statements, contending that the injuries were simple and not grievous. The State opposed, arguing that the matter concerned questions of fact and that the court’s role at the discharge stage is limited to determining whether a prima facie case exists, citing Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal. The High Court examined the FIR, statements, injury report and concluded that a prima facie case was clearly made out, and therefore the order rejecting discharge was proper. Consequently, the application for quash was dismissed, but the court directed that the applicants may surrender within 15 days and apply for bail, with no coercive action to be taken during that period.
Issues considered
- Whether the order rejecting the discharge application can be quashed under Section 528 CrPC.
- Whether a prima facie case exists against the applicants on the basis of the FIR, statements and injury report.
- What is the scope of the court’s power while considering a discharge application – whether it amounts to a mini‑trial.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528
- Indian Penal Code — s. 308, 323, 325, 452, 504, 506
Subjects
- Section 528 CrPC
- discharge application
- prima facie case
- quash of FIR
- evidence appraisal
- bail
- coercive action
- false implication
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 15388 of 2026
Mohd Zeeshan @ Zeeshan And Another
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Safiullah
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Sunil Kumar Dubey, G.A.
Court No. - 77
HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for applicants and Sri Sunil Kumar Dubey, learned
counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as learned AGA appearing for the
State.
2. This application has been filed for seeking quashing of order dated
13.11.2025 passed by learned Additional District and Session Judge,
Sambhal at Chandausi in S.T. No.276 of 2024 (State Vs. Zeeshan and
others), arising out of Case Crime No.259 of 2023, under Sections 323, 504,
506, 452, 325, 308 IPC, P.S. Nakhasa, District Sambhal, whereby discharge
application preferred at the behest of applicants, was rejected.
3. Learned counsel for applicants submitted that applicants have been falsely
implicated in the present case since no offence as alleged has ever been
committed by them. Learned counsel for applicants further submitted that all
the injuries were simple in nature and more so, the alleged injury which was
shown as grievous in nature, was made by way of collusion with the
concerned Investigating Officer. Learned counsel for applicants further
argued that there are several contradictions in the statements recorded during
course of investigation, but without considering the said facts, discharge
application preferred at the behest of applicants, has been rejected illegally
against the weight of evidence by learned court concerned vide impugned
order and as such, the same may be quashed.
4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2 as
well as learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer as made in the instant
application and supported the order impugned. Learned counsel appearing
on behalf of opposite party no.2 also submitted that the contentions, which
are sought to be raised on behalf of applicants, would relate to disputed
NA528 No. 15388 of 2026
2
questions of fact, and would involve appreciation of evidence. It is submitted
that at the stage of consideration of discharge, only a prima facie case is to
be seen and the court concerned is not expected to hold a mini trial.
5. The ambit and scope of exercise of powers while passing an order of
discharge, was subject matter of consideration in Union of India vs.
Prafulla Kumar Samal And Another [(1979) 3 SCC 4], and it was held
that the Court while exercising such powers is not to act as a trial judge but
should weigh evidence and form opinion only on the limited question of
whether a prima facie case is made out.
6. From perusal of the material available on record as well as order
impugned along with injury report which shows grievous injury, it is evident
that learned court concerned after considering each and every aspect of the
matter i.e. allegations made in the FIR, statements recorded during course of
investigation, injury reports and nature of injuries, has rightly rejected the
application for discharge by holding that prima facie offence is clearly made
out against the applicants and as such, it cannot be said that learned court
concerned has acted without application of mind, the reasoning given by
learned court concerned, is just and proper.
7. Accordingly, the prayer sought through the instant application, is refused.
8. Lastly, learned counsel for applicants has submitted that liberty may be
granted to applicants to surrender before the court concerned and apply for
bail to which learned AGA has no objection.
9. In view of the aforesaid, the instant application is finally disposed of with
a direction to the court concerned that in case, the applicants surrender
before the court concerned within a period of 15 days from today and apply
for bail, their 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).
10. However, it is made clear that till 15 days from today, no coercive action
shall be taken against applicants herein in pursuance of aforesaid case.
May 7, 2026
Vivek Kr.
(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
VIVEK KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…