Allahabad High Court
VIKAS BABUversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- VIVEK KUMAR SINGH
Holding
The application under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. lacks merit and is dismissed.
Summary
The applicant, Vikas Babu, filed an application under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. seeking to quash the charge‑sheet and cognizance order in Sessions Trial No. 14 of 2025, which alleged offences under IPC sections 323, 342, 504, 506, 376D and IT Act section 67. He contended that the FIR was lodged with an undue delay, that the rape and IT‑act charges were added later without justification, and that the case was a malicious prosecution lacking any material basis. The State argued that the delay was explained in the FIR and the victim’s statement under Section 164 CrPC, that a prima‑facie case existed, and that the trial court was correctly within its jurisdiction to take cognizance. After reviewing the record, the High Court found no illegality in the charge‑sheet or the cognizance order and held that the court could not assess the evidence at this stage. Consequently, the application under Section 528 was dismissed as meritless.
Issues considered
- Whether the charge‑sheet and cognizance order can be quashed under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. on the ground of delay and alleged lack of material.
- Whether the addition of IPC section 376D and IT Act section 67 during investigation renders the proceedings illegal.
- Whether the High Court can evaluate the substantive evidence to decide the quash petition at this interlocutory stage.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 528
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 164, 528
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 342, 376D, 504, 506
- Information Technology Act — s. 67
Subjects
- quash petition
- charge sheet
- delay in FIR
- malicious prosecution
- rape
- IPC
- IT Act
- Section 528
- High Court
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 17511 of 2026
Vikas Babu
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Chandra Prakash Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 80
HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the
State perused the record.
2. This application has been filed by the applicant to quash the entire
proceeding of Sessions Trial No. 14 of 2025 impugned charge sheet dated
08.08.2024 submitted in Case Crime No. 46 of 2024, under Sections 323,
342, 504, 506, 376D of I.P.C. and Section 67 of I.T. Act, Police Station
Gursahaiganj, District Kannauj, as well as cognizance order dated
30.08.2024, pending in the court of District and Sessions Judge, Kannauj.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the proceeding
initiated against the applicant is illegal and against the material available
on record; the material of investigation does not disclose commission of
any alleged offences against the applicant and as such the proceedings
initiated against the applicant including the impugned charge-sheet and
cognizance/summoning order are liable to be quashed by this court.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the incident
had taken place on 12.01.2024, but the information was given to the
police authorities on 03.02.2024, however, the F.I.R. was lodged on
12.02.2024, under Section 354(gha), 323, 342, 504, 506 of I.P.C. only.
Later on, Sections 376-D of I.P.C. and Section 67 of I.T. Act, were added
by the police during course of investigation. No explanation has been
given either by the first informant or by the victim in respect of delay in
lodging the F.I.R. A malicious prosecution was launched by the victim of
NA528 No. 17511 of 2026
2
the present case and deliberately added Section 376-D and Section 67 of
I.T. Act. Had the incident of rape taken place on 12.01.2024, this fact
should have been mentioned in the F.I.R. dated 12.02.2024. A false case
was lodged against the applicant.
5. Per contra, learned AGA for the State vehemently opposed the prayer
as made in the application and rebutted the stand taken up by learned
counsel for applicant by way of submitting that the averments whatsoever
has been raised by learned counsel for applicant is subject matter of trial
and submitted that after considering the material available on record,
charge-sheet has been submitted against the applicant upon which learned
court concerned has rightly taken cognizance and summoned the
applicant. It is further submitted that the delay has been properly
explained by the first informant in the F.I.R. itself. Even the victim in her
statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., has sufficiently
explained the delay in respect of lodgment of F.I.R. This is a case of gang
rape and the victim was subjected to rape by two persons. A prima facie
offence is made out from perusal of statements of the victim recorded
under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., and appreciation of evidence cannot be
done by this Court under this jurisdiction.
6. After hearing rival submissions extended by learned counsel for the
parties and by bare perusal of record, there appears to be no illegality and
impropriety in the impugned charge-sheet and cognizance/summoning
order and as such learned court concerned has rightly proceeded against
the applicant.
7. In view thereof, the instant application under Section 528 of B.N.S.S.
lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.
(Vivek Kumar Singh,J.)
May 6, 2026
A.P. Pandey
Digitally signed by :-
ANAND PRAKASH PANDEY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…