Allahabad High Court
VARSHA TIWARIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- SAURABH SRIVASTAVA
Holding
The notice under Section 130 BNSS is not a final or adverse order, so the application under Section 528 BNSS to quash it is dismissed.
Summary
The applicant, Varsha Tiwari, filed an application under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking to quash a notice dated 03.11.2025 issued by the Executive Magistrate/Assistant Police Commissioner under Section 130 of the BNSS, as well as the entire proceeding of case no. 1140 of 2025 under Sections 126/135 BNSS. The court examined whether the notice, which merely called upon the applicant to show cause for execution of a peace bond, constituted a final or adverse order that could be challenged. It held that a simple notice does not create a cause of action or affect rights unless it is a final order imposing a penalty. Consequently, the application to quash the notice was deemed untenable. The court disposed of the application without granting any relief.
Issues considered
- Whether a notice issued under Section 130 BNSS calling for a show‑cause response is a final or adverse order that can be challenged under Section 528 BNSS.
- Whether the application to quash the notice and the related proceedings is maintainable.
Legislation cited
- BNSS — s. 126, 130, 135, 528
Subjects
- Section 528
- Section 130
- notice
- quash application
- final order
- cause of action
- peace bond
- BNSS
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 17165 of 2026
Varsha Tiwari
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Arvind Kumar Verma, Raj
Raghuvanshi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 77
HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned AGA for State.
2. Present application under Section 528 BNSS has been preferred with
prayer to quash Notice dated 03.11.2025 issued by Executive
Magistrate/Assistant Police Commissioner, Police Line-I, Varanasi, under
Section 130 BNSS as well as entire proceeding of Case no. 1140 of 2025
(State vs. Varsha Tiwari), under Section 126/135 BNSS, PS- Bhelpur,
District Varanasi.
3. A plain reading of the impugned notice issued by the Executive
Magistrate/Assistant Police Commissioner, Police Line-I, Varanasi, under
Sections 130 BNSS, which is under challenge in the present application,
makes it clear that the applicant was merely called upon to show cause as to
why they should not be directed to execute a bond with sureties for
maintaining peace for a period of one year. In other words, the impugned
notice only seeks a response from the applicant and does not impose any
further consequence at this stage. A simple notice does not create any cause
of action because it is not a final or adverse order affecting anyone's rights,
unless it has been issued without proper authority. A notice by itself does not
harm or violate any person's rights, a person can claim grievance only when
a final order is passed that imposes punishment or otherwise affects him/her
negatively. However, applicant is free to reply to the notice, and if any
prejudice is caused after the authority considers the reply and passes an
order, the applicant can raise her grievance in accordance with law.
NA528 No. 17165 of 2026
2
4. In view thereof, the instant application is disposed of.
(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)
May 5, 2026
Shaswat
Digitally signed by :-
SHASWAT SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…