JAMAL AKHTARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                 APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 17113 of 2026

Jamal Akhtar
                                                           .....Applicant(s)
                                    Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s)              :   Aftab Khan, Sahiba Bano
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)         :   G.A., Harendra Prasad Yadav

Court No. - 80
                  HON'BLE NAND PRABHA SHUKLA, J.

1. Heard Mr. Md. Afzal, holding brief of Mr. Aftab Khan, learned counsel
for the applicants, Mr. Harendra Prasad Yadav, learned counsel for the
opposite party No. 2 and learned AGA for the State.

2. The present application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed with a
prayer to quash the impugned charge sheet dated 17.4.2010 as well as entire
proceedings in Case No. 10745 of 2010 (State v. Atif) arising out of Case
Crime No. 188 of 2010, under Sections 324, 323, 504, '506 I.P.C. Police
Station Jiyanpur, District Azamgarh, including order of cognizance as well
as summoning order dated 12.10.2010 passed by learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate Court no.12 Azamgarh.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that no case is made out
against the applicant and the criminal proceedings drawn is an abuse of
process of law. It has been further submitted that the applicant has been
falsely implicated and there is no evidence against him.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 submits
that prima facie there is ample material against the applicant and the
charges have been framed in the instant matter.

5. From the perusal of records, it transpires that after the completion of
investigation the applicant was charge-sheeted on 17.04.2010 and the
cognizance was taken on 12.10.2010 against the applicant. It has also
been apprised that the charges have been framed.
                                                               NA528 No. 17113 of 2026
                                    2


6. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander and
Another (2012) 9 SCC 460 has enunciated the principles to be considered
for proper exercise of jurisdiction particularly with regard to quashing of
a charge in exercise of power under section 482 Cr.P.C. which are
enumerated as under:

1) Though there are no limits of the powers of the Court under Section 482 of the
Code but the more the power, the more due care and caution is to be exercised in
invoking these powers. The power of quashing criminal proceedings, particularly, the
charge framed in terms of Section 228 of the Code should be exercised very sparingly
and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases

2) The Court should apply the test as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as
made from the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith prima facie
establish the offence or not. If the allegations are so patently absurd and inherently
improbable that no prudent person can ever reach such a conclusion and where the
basic ingredients of a criminal offence are not satisfied then the Court may interfere.

3) The High Court should not unduly interfere. No meticulous examination of the
evidence is needed for considering whether the case would end in conviction or not at
the stage of framing of charge or quashing of charge.

4) Where the exercise of such power is absolutely essential to prevent patent
miscarriage of justice and for correcting some grave error that might be committed by
the subordinate courts even in such cases, the High Court should be loathe to
interfere, at the threshold, to throttle the prosecution in exercise of its inherent
powers.

5) Where there is an express legal bar enacted in any of the provisions of the Code or
any specific law in force to the very initiation or institution and continuance of such
criminal proceedings, such a bar is intended to provide specific protection to an
accused.

6) The Court has a duty to balance the freedom of a person and the right of the
complainant or prosecution to investigate and prosecute the offender.

7) The process of the Court cannot be permitted to be used for an oblique or
ultimate/ulterior purpose.
                                                               NA528 No. 17113 of 2026
                                        3


8) Where the allegations made and as they appeared from the record and documents
annexed therewith to predominantly give rise and constitute a 'civil wrong' with no
'element of criminality' and does not satisfy the basic ingredients of a criminal
offence, the Court may be justified in quashing the charge. Even in such cases, the
Court would not embark upon the critical analysis of the evidence.

9) Another very significant caution that the courts have to observe is that it cannot
examine the facts, evidence and materials on record to determine whether there is
sufficient material on the basis of which the case would end in a conviction, the Court
is concerned primarily with the allegations taken as a whole whether they will
constitute an offence and, if so, is it an abuse of the process of court leading to
injustice.

10) It is neither necessary nor is the court called upon to hold a full-fledged enquiry
or to appreciate evidence collected by the investigating agencies to find out whether it
is a case of acquittal or conviction.

11) Where allegations give rise to a civil claim and also amount to an offence, merely
because a civil claim is maintainable, does not mean that a criminal complaint cannot
be maintained.

12) In exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 228 and/or under Section 482, the
Court cannot take into consideration external materials given by an accused for
reaching the conclusion that no offence was disclosed or that there was possibility of
his acquittal. The Court has to consider the record and documents annexed with by
the prosecution.

13) Quashing of a charge is an exception to the rule of continuous prosecution. Where
the offence is even broadly satisfied, the Court should be more inclined to permit
continuation of prosecution rather than its quashing at that initial stage. The Court is
not expected to marshal the records with a view to decide admissibility and reliability
of the documents or records but is an opinion formed prima facie.

14) Where the charge-sheet, report under Section 173(2) of the Code, suffers from
fundamental legal defects, the Court may be well within its jurisdiction to frame a
charge.

15) Coupled with any or all of the above, where the Court finds that it would amount
to abuse of process of the Code or that interest of justice favours, otherwise it may
                                                                                                    NA528 No. 17113 of 2026
                                                                         4


                                    quash the charge. The power is to be exercised ex debito justitiae, i.e. to do real and
                                    substantial justice for administration of which alone, the courts exist.

                                    These are the principles which individually and preferably cumulatively (one or more)
                                    be taken into consideration.

                                    7. As the charges have been framed against the applicant and the Trial
                                    Court having taken a tentative view which is subject to final culmination
                                    of the proceedings, therefore, the Court while exercising its power under
                                    section 482/528 BNSS would not doubt the case of the prosecution
                                    unduly and extend its jurisdiction to quash the charge in haste. In other
                                    words, the truth of the matter has come out when the prosecution
                                    evidence is led, the witnesses are cross examined by the defence, the
                                    incriminating material and evidence is put to the accused in terms of
                                    section 313 Cr.P.C. and then the accused is provided an opportunity to
                                    lead evidence, if any. It is only upon completion of such steps that the
                                    trial concludes with the Court forming its final opinion and delivering its
                                    judgements.

                                    8. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this
                                    application u/s 528 BNSS is dismissed with liberty to the accused-
                                    applicant to put forth all his contentions during the course of trial and the
                                    Trial Court shall conclude the trial as earliest possible for which the
                                    applicant and the prosecution shall cooperate.


                                                                                              (Nand Prabha Shukla,J.)
                                    September 10, 2026
                                    Aditya Tripathi




Digitally signed by :-
ADITYA TRIPATHI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad