Allahabad High Court
KRIPAL SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- SAURABH SRIVASTAVA
Holding
The court held that there was no ground to invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS to quash the charge‑sheet and dismissed the application.
Summary
Kripal Singh filed an application under Section 528 BNSS seeking to quash Criminal Case No. 5928 of 2021, alleging false implication and lack of evidence. The State opposed, contending that the issues were factual and that at the stage of taking cognizance only a prima facie case is required. The court observed that the applicant’s claim of having no criminal history was contradicted by the AGA’s finding of another pending case, invoking the Supreme Court’s ‘clean‑hands’ principle as laid down in S.B. Noronah vs Union of India and M/s Tomorrowland Limited vs Housing and Urban Development Corporation Limited. Relying on those precedents, the court held that there was no ground to invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS to quash the charge‑sheet. Accordingly, the application for quashing was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can quash criminal proceedings under Section 528 BNSS on the ground of false implication.
- Whether the presence of a pending criminal case or lack of ‘clean hands’ bars relief under Section 528 BNSS.
- Whether the court may examine the merits of evidence at the stage of taking cognizance.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 34, 420, 452, 467, 471, 504, 506
Subjects
- quash
- criminal proceedings
- Section 528 BNSS
- inherent jurisdiction
- clean hands doctrine
- prima facie case
- charge sheet
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 22837 of 2026
Kripal Singh
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Aditya Pratap Mishra, Manoj Kumar
Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Rohan Gupta
Court No. - 79
HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for parties.
2. The present application under Section 528 BNSS, has been filed for
quashing the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 5928 of 2021 (State
vs. Ravindra Kumar and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 725 of
2020, under Sections 420, 467, 471, 452, 323, 504, 506, 34 IPC, Police
Station- Muradnagar, District- Ghaziabad and charge sheet dated 9.9.2021
and cognizance order dated 16.2.2022.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for applicant that applicant has been
falsely implicated in the present case due to mala fide intention and ulterior
motive of opposite party no. 2. From perusal of documentary evidences, no
offence punishable in pursuance of aforesaid sections is made out against the
applicants and as such impugned cognizance order and charge sheet are
liable to be quashed and set aside.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 vehemently
opposed the prayer sought through instant application by way of
submitting that the contentions, which are sought to be raised on behalf of
applicant, would relate to disputed questions of fact, and would involve
appreciation of evidence. It is also submitted that at the time of taking
cognizance, only a prima facie case is to be seen and the court concerned is
not expected to hold a mini trial.
NA528 No. 22837 of 2026
2
6. In compliance to earlier order dated 7.7.2026, learned AGA came up
with the instructions that one more criminal history case is pending
against the applicant but at the time of filing instant application, it is
clearly averred in the narration of the paragraph no. 24 of the instant
application that applicant has no criminal history except the present case,
meaning thereby applicant has not come up with clean hands and as such
no interference is required by this Court since in catena of judgments
rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court such as in case of S.B.Noronah vs.
Union of India reported in AIR Online 1994 SC 124 as well as in case of
M/s Tomorrowland Limited vs. Housing and Urban Development
Corporation Limited and another reported in [2025] 2 S.C.R 998
wherein it has been held that no indulgence or relief would be granted in
favour of any litigant who has not approached to the Court with 'clean
hands'.
7. Accordingly, this Court does not find any good ground to invoke its
inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS for quashing the impugned
charge-sheet or the consequential criminal proceedings and as such, the
present application is hereby dismissed.
(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)
September 8, 2026
Shaswat
Digitally signed by :-
SHASWAT SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…