Allahabad High Court
PREMPAL AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- GAUTAM CHOWDHARY
Holding
The court refused to quash the non‑bailable warrant, holding that the matter involves factual disputes and evidence appraisal.
Summary
The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking to quash a non‑bailable warrant dated 06‑05‑2025 and the entire criminal proceeding (Complaint Case No. 408 of 2018) pending before the Judicial Magistrate‑I, Budaun. They alleged that no offence was disclosed against them and that the prosecution was instituted maliciously to harass them. The court examined the materials and observed that the request to quash the order raised factual disputes and required an appraisal of evidence, which could not be decided at this stage. Consequently, the court refused to quash the warrant but directed that it be kept in abeyance for twenty days, allowing the applicants to surrender and apply for bail. The application was therefore disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the non‑bailable warrant and the criminal proceedings can be quashed under Section 528 BNSS.
- Whether the application involves factual disputes that preclude a quash order at this stage.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act — s. 528
- Indian Penal Code — s. 467, 468, 471
Subjects
- non‑bailable warrant
- quash application
- Section 528 BNSS
- bail
- criminal procedure
- malicious prosecution
- fact disputes
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 15959 of 2026
Prempal And Another
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Bipin Pal Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 82
HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for
the State and perused the material brought on record.
2. The present application under Section 528 BNSS has been
filed praying for quashing non bailable warrant order dated
06.05.2025 as well as entire proceeding of Complaint Case No.
408 of 2018 (Brajlal @ Vij Lal Vs. Rajveer @ Nanhelal and
others), under Sections 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station
Moosajhag, District Budaun, pending in the court of learned
Judicial Magistrat5e-I, Budaun.
3. The contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that
no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present
prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for
the purpose of causing harassment. He pointed out certain
documents and statements in support of his contention.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the applicants and
perused the materials brought on record, it does not appear to
be a fit case praying for quashing of impugned order. The
prayer praying for quashing of same is hereby refused, at this
stage as the argument raised by learned counsel for the
applicants involves factual disputes and appraisal of evidence.
5. However, looking at the nature of offence alleged and
attending facts and circumstances of the case, as have been
brought on record, it is directed that if the applicants appear
and surrender before the court below within twenty days from
today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be
considered and decided in accordance with law.
NA528 No. 15959 of 2026
2
6. For a period of aforesaid twenty days from today, the non-
bailable warrant issued against the applicants shall be kept in
abeyance.
7. The present application stands disposed of.
May 5, 2026
Mustaqeem.
(Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
MOHD MUSTAQEEM KHAN
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…