MANOJ PANDEY @ MANOJ KUMAR PANDEY AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                 APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 23019 of 2026


Manoj Pandey @ Manoj Kumar Pandey And
Another                                                    .....Applicant(s)
                                    Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s)      : Brajesh Kumar Chaturvedi,              Harsh
                                Tiwari, Kriti Rudra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 79
                  HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for applicants and learned AGA for State.

2. Present application has been preferred with the prayer to quash the
entire proceeding of impugned summoning and cognizance order dated
19.02.2026 in Case No.2336 of 2026 (State Vs. Manoj Pandey and
another) passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ballia as well as
impugned chargesheet dated 24.08.2025, arising out of Case Crime
No.222 of 2025, under Sections 291 and 352 of BNS, P.S. Kotwali,
District Ballia.

3. On previous occasion notices were issued to opposite party no.2 and
the same has been reported as served, when the matter has been taken up
today none appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2 either in person or
through counsel. No option left but to consider the prayer as made
through instant application on the basis of documents available in the
records as well as arguments raised by learned counsel for the applicant,
although it is moral and legal obligation upon the opposite party no.2 to
put his appearance after service of notice before any forum of law for
protecting and defending the case when the same has been challenged.

4. Learned counsel for applicants argued that applicants have been falsely
implicated in the present case by opposite party no.2 only to harass them,
whereas by bare perusal of the narration made in the FIR, there is hardly
any allegation levelled against applicants upon which trial can proceed. It
                                                       NA528 No. 23019 of 2026
                               2


has also been argued by learned counsel for applicants that only to make
pressure upon applicants present FIR has been filed. He further submitted
that FIR has been lodged with intention to harass the applicants due to
pre-existing neighbourhood disputes, and the allegation regarding the bite
of dog is patently false as the said dog was a street dog, not owned, kept
or controlled by the applicants at any point of time.

5. Learned counsel for applicant further submitted that no CCTV footage
or independent evidence could be found due to delay. He further
submitted that applicant No.2 is a young student pursuing his studies and
he never involved in any unlawful activity and he has no motive or reason
to engage in any such alleged incident. None of the independent persons
residing near the place of occurrence have supported the prosecution
story. The case diary and CDRs repeatedly records that neighbours stated
that co-accused Rohit Pandey and Smt. Kanchan Pandey were not present
on the spot and on one witnesses any quarrel or assault as alleged. He
further submitted that no independent corroboration of the prosecution
story. Learned counsel for applicants further submitted that if there is
hardly any allegation levelled against applicants then under which
circumstance, the concerned Investigating Officer submitted chargesheet
against them whereupon without applying its judicial mind, learned court
concerned took cognizance of offence over the said chargesheet which is
bad in the eye of law and as such, same may be quashed. In support of his
submissions, learned counsel for applicant placed reliance upon a
judgment passed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of State of
Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335].

6. Per contra, learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer as made in the
application by way of submitting that the contentions, which are sought to
be raised on behalf of applicants, would relate to disputed questions of
fact, and would involve appreciation of evidence.

7. After having the rival contentions raised by learned counsel for parties
and perusal of the entire material available on record, this Court finds that
no case is made out against applicants for proceeding with the trial since
the allegations as made that applicants is only on the basis of concocted
story which requires that investigation, are entirely vague in nature. In a
                                                       NA528 No. 23019 of 2026
                               3


similar matter, in the case of Sanjay D. Jain & others Vs. State of
Maharashtra & others [2025 LiveLaw (SC) 960], wherein Hon'ble the
Apex Court has held that if the allegations as made were entirely vague in
nature and in the absence of any details whatsoever it could not be said
that even a prima facie case had been made out for proceeding with the
trial.

8. In the case of Mahmood Ali and others vs. State of U.P. and others
(Criminal Appeal No. 2341 of 2023, decided on 08.08.2023), Hon'ble
the Supreme Court observed that when an accused comes before the High
Court, invoking either the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or
the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, to get
the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed, essentially on the ground
that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted
with the ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance, then in such
circumstances, the High Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care
and a little more closely. It was further observed that it will not be enough
for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone
for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to
constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not as, in frivolous or
vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other
attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and
above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection, to
try and read between the lines.

9. In Bhajan Lal (supra), Hon'ble the Supreme Court had already set out
the broad categories of cases in which the inherent power under Section
482 Cr.P.C. could be exercised. Para 102 of the decision reads as follows:

'102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant
provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law
enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of
the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under
Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above,
we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein
such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of
any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be
                                                      NA528 No. 23019 of 2026
                               4


possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently
channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an
exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be
exercised.

(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the
complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their
entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case
against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other
materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable
offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1)
of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of
Section 155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint
and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the
commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable
offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is
permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as
contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd
and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can
ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding
against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions
of the Code or the Act concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is
instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or
where there is a specific provision in the Code or the Act concerned,
providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide
and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior
motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite
                                                                                           NA528 No. 23019 of 2026
                                                                    5


                                    him due to private and personal grudge.'

                                    10. The case in hand, the allegations against the applicants, such as they
                                    are, are wholly insufficient and, prima facie, do not make out a case
                                    against them. Further, they are so farfetched and improbable that no
                                    prudent person can conclude that there are sufficient grounds to proceed
                                    against them. In effect, the present case falls squarely in categories (1) (3)
                                    and (5) set out in Bhajan Lal (supra) and as such, permitting the
                                    criminal process to go on against the applicants herein in such a situation
                                    would, therefore, result in clear and patent injustice. This is a fit case for
                                    exercising its inherent power under Section 528 BNSS to quash entire
                                    proceedings.

                                    11. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances as well as in
                                    light of said decisions of Hon'ble the Apex Court,the entire proceeding of
                                    impugned summoning and cognizance order dated 19.02.2026 in Case
                                    No.2336 of 2026 (State Vs. Manoj Pandey and another) passed by learned
                                    Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ballia as well as impugned chargesheet dated
                                    24.08.2025, arising out of Case Crime No.222 of 2025, under Sections
                                    291 and 352 of BNS, P.S. Kotwali, District Ballia, are hereby quashed.

                                    12. Accordingly, the instant application is allowed.

                                    September 8, 2026
                                    Ashish/-

                                                                                        (Saurabh Srivastava,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
ASHISH KUMAR SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad