Allahabad High Court

VIGUL AND 4 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 4 May 2026
Bench: SAURABH SRIVASTAVA

Holding

The Court held that the material on record was sufficient to proceed against the accused and that the inherent powers under Section 528 CrPC could not be invoked, leading to dismissal of the quash application.

Summary

The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash the charge sheet dated 10‑04‑2021 and the cognizance order dated 01‑07‑2022 in a case involving offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506 and 325 IPC. They alleged false implication, mala‑fide motives of the opposite party and claimed that the FIR and informant statements were contradictory. The State opposed the prayer. The Court examined the scope of Section 528, noting that at the summoning stage the magistrate need only record a prima facie opinion and not conduct a mini‑trial, as affirmed in S.W. Palanitkar and Nupur Talwar. Finding that the material on record was sufficient to proceed against the accused and that the factual allegations of false implication required trial‑court adjudication, the Court held that the inherent powers under Section 528 could not be invoked. Consequently, the application was dismissed, with the applicants directed to pursue other legal remedies.

Issues considered

Whether the charge sheet and cognizance order can be quashed under Section 528 CrPC.
Whether the magistrate’s summoning order requires a prima facie basis or proof of guilt.
Whether the inherent powers under Section 528 CrPC are exercisable in the present circumstances.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528

Subjects

Section 528 CrPC
quash proceedings
prima facie test
magistrate cognizance
inherent powers
false implication
charge sheet dismissal

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 15996 of 2026

Vigul And 4 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ankit Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 77
HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Present application has been preferred with prayer to quash charge sheet
dated 10.4.2021 as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 01.07.2022
and entire proceeding of Case no. 8558 of 2022 (State vs. Vigul and others)
arising out of Case Crime no. 227 of 2020 under sections 147, 148, 149,
323, 504, 506, 325 IPC, PS- Khadda, District Kushinagar.

3. It is contended by learned counsel for applicant that applicant has been
falsely implicated in the present case due to mala fide intention and ulterior
motive of opposite party no. 2. The prosecution has not assigned any motive
against the present applicants for commission of crime as alleged. No
specific allegation has been levelled against the applicants except only
general allegation of causing injury. All the injuries sustained by injured are
simple in nature. There are material contradictions in the version of FIR and
statements of informant and as such impugned cognizance order and charge
sheet are liable to be quashed and set aside.

4. Per contra, learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer sought through
instant application.

5. After hearing the rival submissions extended by learned counsels for the
parties and perusing the records, this Court is of the opinion that at the stage
of summoning, the Magistrate is only required to record a prima facie
opinion, based on the material on record, and is not expected to hold a mini
NA528 No. 15996 of 2026
2

trial or to examine the defence of the accused. In judgment rendered by
Hon'ble Apex Court in case of S.W. Palanitkar and Others v. State of
Bihar and Another; (2002) 1 SCC 241 it was held that the test which was
required to be applied was whether there is "sufficient ground for
proceeding" and not whether there is "sufficient ground for conviction". In
the case of Nupur Talwar v. Central Bureau of Investigation and
Another; (2012) 11 SCC 465, it was reiterated that the limited purpose of
consideration of material at the stage of issuing process being tentative as
distinguished from the actual evidence produced during trial, the test to be
applied at the stage was whether the material placed before the Magistrate
was "sufficient for proceeding against the accused" and not "sufficient to
prove and establish the guilt".

6. From perusal of the material on record, at this stage, it cannot be said that
no offence is made out against the applicants. The assertions of false
implication raised by the applicants are factual issues that requires proper
adjudication by the trial court based on evidence and cannot be conclusively
determined in proceedings under Section 528 BNSS. In proceeding u/s 528
BNSS, this Court is not inclined to hold mini-trial.

7. It is well settled that the inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS are to
be exercised sparingly and with caution, primarily to prevent abuse of the
process of the court or to secure the ends of justice. In the instant case, no
sufficient ground have been made out to invoke the extraordinary
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 BNSS.

8. In view of the foregoing, the application under Section 528 BNSS is
devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. However, applicants are at
liberty to avail all other remedy available at law.

(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)
May 5, 2026
Shaswat

Digitally signed by :-
SHASWAT SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…