Allahabad High Court
CHANDRAKESHversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- VIVEK KUMAR SINGH
Holding
The application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. is dismissed as it lacks merit; the charge‑sheet and cognizance order are valid.
Summary
The applicant, Chandrakesh, filed an application under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. seeking to quash the charge‑sheet and cognizance order in Session Trial No. 1195 of 2026, alleging that the case against him rests solely on extra‑judicial confessions and lacks any other evidence. The State opposed, contending that the material on record justified the charge‑sheet and that the matter, involving an alleged honour killing, warrants trial. The High Court examined the submissions and the record, finding no illegality in the charge‑sheet or the cognizance order and held that it could not assess the evidence at this interlocutory stage. Consequently, the Court dismissed the application as meritless, directing the applicant to pursue any discharge application before the trial court. The order was pronounced on 6 May 2026 by Justice Vivek Kumar Singh.
Issues considered
- Whether the charge‑sheet and cognizance order against the applicant can be quashed on the ground that the case is based only on extra‑judicial confessions.
- Whether the High Court may interfere with the trial court's taking of cognizance at the pre‑trial stage.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 103(1), 528, 61(2)Ka
Subjects
- quash petition
- extra‑judicial confession
- charge‑sheet
- cognizance
- Section 528
- BNSS
- honour killing
- evidence
- high court
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 18816 of 2026
Chandrakesh
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dhyan Shanker Pandey, Vishal Jaiswal
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 Session Trial No. 1195 of 2026 (State vs. Chandrakesh and
others) arising out of Case Crime No. 136 of 2025, under Sections
61(2)Ka, 103(1) BNS, Police Station Rajpura, District Sambhal as well as
order dated 7.8.2025 pending before Special Judge (Prevention of
Corruption Act), Court No. 1, Moradabad.
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.
Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the first
information report was lodged by applicant/informant Chandrakesh
against five known persons and two unknown persons but they were
exonerated in this case and the applicant has been made accused only on
the strength of statements of two witnesses, namely, Ratan Singh and
Smt. Sushila. Witness Ratan Singh stated that the applicant made extra
judicial confession and similar statement was made by Sushila, who
happens to be wife of the co-accused Dharmendra. It is further submitted
NA528 No. 18816 of 2026
2
that there is no evidence in this case except the extra judicial confession.
The evidence of extra judicial confession is a very weak evidence and no
other evidence was recorded against the applicant except extra judicial
confession. Therefore, the proceedings against the applicant be quashed.
4. 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 extra judicial confession was made
by the applicant and the charge may be framed on strong suspicion. In this
matter, the applicant Chandrakesh lodged the first information report
against several other persons and this is a matter of honour killing, where
death penalty may be awarded by the trial court if the convincing
evidence is adduced. There are sufficient evidence to proceed against the
present applicant.
5. 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 and this Court cannot appreciate the evidence at this stage.
6. In view thereof, the instant application under Section 528 B.N.S.S.
lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.
7. It is open that the applicant may move discharge application before the
trial court, who shall pass order in accordance with law.
(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…