Allahabad High Court

CHANDRASHEKHAR YADAVversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

Decided: 2 September 2026
Bench: SAMIT GOPAL

Holding

The application under Section 528 BNSS is dismissed; the proceedings are not quashed.

Summary

The applicant, a shop‑keeper, was named in an FIR alleging assault, molestation, offences under the SC/ST Act and the POCSO Act. He filed an application under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking to quash the charge‑sheet, the cognizance order and to stay the trial, claiming he was falsely implicated, that the FIR was lodged after an undue delay, and that there were contradictions and malafide motives. The State and the complainant opposed the petition, arguing that the FIR and victim’s statement were on record and that the case was at the stage of prima facie evidence. The Court held that alleged malafide intent cannot be a ground for quashing a proceeding and that the existence of prima facie evidence precludes interference at this stage. Consequently, the application under Section 528 BNSS was dismissed, and the criminal proceedings were allowed to continue.

Issues considered

Whether an application under Section 528 BNSS can be entertained to quash criminal proceedings on the ground of alleged malafide prosecution and contradictions in the FIR.
Whether the presence of prima facie evidence is sufficient to deny a quash order.
Whether delay in lodging the FIR defeats the prosecution’s case at the stage of a quash application.

Legislation cited

Bihar National Security Act — s. 126, 135, 170, 180, 183, 528
POCSO Act — s. 7, 8
SC/ST Act — s. 3(2)(va)

Subjects

quash petition
Section 528 BNSS
prima facie evidence
malafide prosecution
SC/ST Act
POCSO Act
FIR delay
criminal procedure

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 16052 of 2026

Chandrashekhar Yadav
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Kailash Nath
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Dhannajai Pratap, G.A.

Court No. - 76
HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.

1. List revised.

2. Heard Sri Kailash Nath, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Dhannajai
Pratap, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Sri Ram Prakash
Shukla, learned counsel for the State and perused the material brought on
record.

3. This application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed by the applicant-
Chandrashekhar Yadav, with the prayer to allow this application and quash
the entire proceeding as well as impugned charge-sheet dated 28.10.2025 &
cognizance order dated 05.02.2026 in S.S.T. No. 49 of 2026 (State
Vs. Chandrashekhar) arising out of Case Crime No. 296 of 2025, under
Sections 352, 74 B.N.S. and Section 3(2)(va) SC/ST Act and Section 7/8
POCSO Act, Police Station Khutahan, District Jaunpur, pending in the Court
of Additional Sessions Judge / Special Judge (POCSO Act), Jaunpur, with a
further prayer that proceeding of the aforesaid case be stayed during the
pendency of the present application.

4. The first information report of the matter was lodged on 30.09.2025 by the
opposite party no.2 against the applicant under Sections 352, 74 B.N.S.
and Section 3(2)(va) SC/ST Act alleging therein that on 01.08.2025 at about
10 am her daughter aged about 16 years had gone to the general store of the
applicant Chandrashekhar Yadav to purchase some items. On seeing her
alone the accused called her inside the shop on which she did not go inside
and then he forcibly caught her hand and pulled her inside the shop and
enraged her modesty. She somehow got herself relieved from him and came
NA528 No. 16052 of 2026
2

back home and told her about the incident after which the informant went to
the shop of the accused where he abused her with caste related words and
threatened her to do whatever she likes. A report be lodged and action be
taken.

5. The investigation in the matter started in which the statement of the victim
was recorded under Section 180 BNSS and under Section 183 BNSS. She
reiterated the version of the first information report. The other witnesses
were also interrogated. Subsequently charge-sheet dated 28.10.2025 was
filed against the accused-applicant for offences under Sections 352, 74
B.N.S. & Section 7/8 POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(va) SC/ST Act. The
court of the Additional Sessions Judge / Special Judge, POCSO Act
(Exclusive), Jaunpur took cognizance upon the same and summoned the
applicant under the said sections. The present application has thus been filed
before this Court with the prayers aforesaid.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been
falsely implicated in the present case. While placing paragraph 15 & 16 of
the affidavit it is submitted that the applicant is a shop-keeper and the entire
family members of the informant purchase things from his shop and from
03.04.2025 to 17.07.2025 they had done purchasing and were to pay money
to him which was not paid to him. Due to non payment of money hot talks
between them took place and on 02.08.2025. The police had
challaned Chandrashekhar Yadav under Sections 170, 126, 135 BNSS. It is
submitted that the present first information report has been lodged after a
delay of about two months. It is submitted that there are contradictions in
the first information report and the statements of the victim and also the
statement of the first informant and thus the prosecution story is not truthful.
Learned counsel has relied upon the judgement of the Apex Court in the case
of Harilal Etc Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh: 2023 LawSuit (SC) 885 and
on a judgement of a co-ordinate Bench of the High Court of Delhi in the
case of Jasbir Singh Vs. State: 2022 LawSuit (Del) 1142 and submitted
that in the said judgements it has been held that the prosecution has not
convincingly proved the genesis of the crime and thus benefit was given to
the accused. It is submitted that the proceedings are with malafide intentions
and the present application be allowed.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned
counsel for the State opposed the present petition. Learned counsel for the
NA528 No. 16052 of 2026
3

opposite party no.2 submits that in the present petition the first information
report was not being lodged and it was only after filing a contempt petition
being Civil Contempt No. 5576 / 2026 the first information report in the
matter was lodged. It is submitted that in so far as the two judgements are
being relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant are concerned, the
same were after trial and thus are distinguishable on facts as the in the
present matter only investigation has concluded and prima facie offence is
disclosed. It is submitted that even malafides of the applicant cannot be
considered at the stage of quashing.

8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records,
it is evident that the applicant is named in the first information report and the
statement of the victim recorded during investigation. There are allegations
against him. In so far as the malafides are concerned, it is trite law that the
malafides cannot be a ground for quashing as has been held by the Apex
Court in the cases of State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma: AIR 1991 SC 1260,
Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Aryan Singh etc. : 2023 INSC 338 and
State of M.P. Vs. Awadh Kishore Gupta : (2004) 1 SCC 691, the same can
be looked in the trial at the appropriate stage. Further the judgements as are
being relied upon are after trial in which evidence was recorded and then a
finding was returned by the said Courts. This matter is at the stage of
summoning and looking to the prima facie evidence no ground for
interference is made out.

9. The present application under Section 528 BNSS is dismissed.

10. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

September 3, 2026
AS Rathore
(Samit Gopal,J.)

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…