Allahabad High Court

RAMKRISHNAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 28 September 2026
Bench: GAUTAM CHOWDHARY

Holding

The Court held that the factual dispute over identity cannot be adjudicated at the interlocutory stage under Section 528, and therefore the application for quash was dismissed.

Summary

The applicant, Ramkrishna, filed an application under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. seeking to quash the criminal proceedings (Case No. 3135 of 2014) and the non‑bailable warrant issued against him, alleging that he had been mistakenly identified as Ram Kishan Sharma. He contended that he was not named in the FIR and that the prosecution was malicious. The State argued that the dispute was factual and could not be decided at this stage. The Court examined a police report which concluded that Ram Kishan Sharma and Ram Krishna Sharma were the same person, rejecting the applicant’s claim of mistaken identity. Consequently, the application for quash was refused, but the Court directed that the non‑bailable warrant be kept in abeyance for three weeks and that the applicant may apply for bail if he surrenders.

Issues considered

Whether an application under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. for quashing criminal proceedings can be entertained when the alleged mistake of identity is a factual issue.
Whether the applicant has established that he is a different person from the accused named in the FIR.
Whether the non‑bailable warrant issued against the applicant should be set aside pending his surrender.

Legislation cited

B.N.S.S. — s. 528
Indian Penal Code — s. 149, 152, 332, 336, 341, 353, 427, 504
Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, 1984 — s. 3

Subjects

mistaken identity
quash petition
Section 528
non‑bailable warrant
bail
criminal procedure
false implication

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 18974 of 2026

Ramkrishna
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rohit Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 75
HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the
State.

2. The present application has been filed praying for quashing the
proceedings of Case No. 3135 of 2014 (State Vs. Lokmani kant Jadaun
and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 331 of 2012 under Sections
149, 341, 332, 353, 427, 336, 504, 152 I.P.C., and Section 3 Prevention of
Damages to Public Property Act, 1984 Police Station Chhata, District
Mathura pending before learned Judicial Magistrate, Chhata, District
Mathura and also to quash the charge sheet dated 10.11.2014 as well as
cognizance/summoning order dated 16.12.2014 and also to quash the non-
bailable-warrant order dated 04.10.2025 passed in the aforesaid.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the applicant's
name is Ram Krishna son of Sri Rajmal, whereas the accused of the
present case is Ram Kishan Sharma son of Sri Ramman Sharma. He
further submits that Ram Krishna son of Sri Rajmal and Ram Kishan
Sharma son of Sri Ramman Sharma are two different person and that the
applicant has been falsely implicated on the pretext of Ram Kishan
Sharma son of Sri Ramman Sharma. He further submits that the applicant
was not aware of the initiation of the instant prosecution against him and
it was also in the month of October, 2025, he came to know about
pending proceedings against him, when the police came to arrest the
applicant at the behest of issuance of non-bailable warrant. Learned
counsel further submits that the applicant was not named in the F.I.R. nor
in the statement of first informant but in the subsequent statement of the
first informant, the applicant has been roped in the present case. He
further submits that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the
present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the
purpose of causing harassment. He pointed out certain documents and
statements in support of his contention.
NA528 No. 18974 of 2026
2

4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has contended that disputed
questions of fact cannot be adjudicated before this Court, which may be
seen during the trial, therefore the instant application is liable to be
rejected outrightly.

5. Perusal of the report dated 27.01.2025 shows that the Ram Kishan
Sharma son of Sri Ram Manman Sharma alias Ram Charan Sharma as
well as Ram Krishna Sharma son of Sri Rajmal Sharma are the same and
one person, copy of police report is at page no. 131 of paper book,
therefore the arguments as advanced by learned counsel for the applicant
has no force. Furthermore, all the submissions made at the bar, relate to
the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this
Court under Section 528 of B.N.S.S.. At this stage only prima facie case
is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases
of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of
Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs.
P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical
Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC
(Cr.) 283.

6. The reliefs as sought by the applicants is refused.

7. However, looking at the nature of offence alleged and attending facts
and circumstances of the case, as have been brought on record, it is
directed that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the court
below within three weeks from today and applies for bail, his prayer for
bail shall be considered and decided in accordance with law.

8. For a period of three weeks from today, the non-bailable warrant
issued against the applicant shall be kept in abeyance.

9. The present application stands disposed of.

(Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.)
September 29, 2026
S.Ali

Digitally signed by :-
SHAUKAT ALI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…