Allahabad High Court

MUKESH AND 4 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 4 May 2026
Bench: CHAWAN PRAKASH

Holding

The court held that a prima facie case exists and therefore refused to quash the criminal proceedings.

Summary

The applicants sought to quash criminal proceedings (Case No. 3005 of 2022) filed under several IPC offences arising from a land‑related dispute, invoking Section 528 of the CrPC. They claimed they were falsely implicated and that no offence was made out against them. The State opposed, contending that the FIR, medical report, and witness statements supported the prosecution. The High Court examined the material and held that, at the preliminary stage, a prima facie case exists and the disputed facts cannot be decided under Section 528. Consequently, the court found no ground to quash the proceedings and dismissed the application.

Issues considered

Whether the criminal proceedings under Sections 147, 148, 323, 325, 452, 504 and 506 IPC can be quashed under Section 528 of the CrPC on the ground that no offence is made out against the applicants.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528
Indian Penal Code — s. 147, 148, 323, 325, 452, 504, 506

Subjects

quash
Section 528 CrPC
prima facie case
criminal proceedings
IPC offences
land dispute
false implication

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 2460 of 2026

Mukesh And 4 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ram Janam Shahi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 79
HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J.

1. Heard Sri Ram Janam Shahi, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri
Jyoti Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. The applicants filed the present application under Section 528 B.N.S.S.
to quash entire criminal proceedings of Case No. 3005 of 2022 (State Vs.
Mukesh and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 0896 of 2020, under
Sections 147, 148, 323, 325, 452, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station
Sirsaganj, District Firozabad, pending in the court of Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate-II, Shikohabad, Firozabad as well as impugned charge
sheet No. 87 of 2021 dated 03.02.2021 and order dated 25.02.2022 passed
by the additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Shikohabad, Firozabad.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants are
innocent, they have not committed the alleged offence but they have been
falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that on 21.11.2003,
the land management committee of the concerned village Panchayat made
a proposal for the allotment of residential lease to the eligible persons of
the village. The opposite party no. 2 had also applied but he was not
found eligible and no land was allotted in his favour. The land was
allotted in favour of one Suresh Kumar of plot no. 1515 measuring area
0.008 hectare. The aforesaid proposal of the land management committee
was approved by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Shikohabad vide order dated
05.12.2003 and since then he was residing there by constructing a house
upon the said land. He next submitted that on 02.11.2019, Suresh Kumar
NA528 No. 2460 of 2026
2

made a proposal before several persons to sale out his house for the
purpose of purchasing another house and the applicant no. 2 and husband
of opposite party no. 2 were also interested in purchasing the said house
but Suresh Kumar sold the said house to the applicant no. 2 and the
applicants started living there. Thereafter the husband of opposite party
no. 2 started threatening the applicants for vacating the said house and
when the applicants refused to do so, the husband of opposite party no. 2
threatened for dire consequences. The husband of opposite party no. 2
filed an application, which was dismissed. He also submitted that as a
counterblast, opposite party no. 2 lodged a first information report against
the applicants regarding the incident dated 20.12.2020 with the allegation
that the applicants came to her house and started beating her. She was
medically examined and according to medical report, five injuries were
found on her body. During investigation, statements of the injured and
other witnesses were recorded. After investigation, charge sheet was
submitted and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance. On the basis
of allegations made in the first information report, no case is made out
against the applicants, therefore, cognizance order as well as charge sheet
is liable to be set aside.

4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the submissions made
by learned counsel for the applicants and submitted that opposite party no.
2 lodged a first information report against the applicants regarding the
incident dated 20.12.2020. The injured was medically examined and
according to medical report, five injuries were found on her body. During
investigation, statements of opposite party no. 2 and other witnesses were
recorded wherein they supported the prosecution version. After
investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the applicants and the
learned Magistrate has taken cognizance. He further submitted that on the
basis of evidence collected during investigation, it cannot be said that no
offence is made out against the applicants, therefore, application is liable
to be dismissed.

5. As per facts of the case, a first information report as case Crime
No. 0896 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 325, 452, 504 and 506
I.P.C. was registered at Police Station Sirsaganj, District
Firozabad against the applicants regarding the incident dated 20.12.2020.
NA528 No. 2460 of 2026
3

During investigation, statements of opposite party no. 2, her daughter, and
Dr. Rahul Jain were recorded. After investigation, charge sheet was
submitted against the applicants and the learned Magistrate has taken
cognizance.

6. From the perusal of material on record and the facts of the case, at this
stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants.
All the submissions made at the bar relates to the disputed questions on
fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of power
conferred under Section 528 B.N.S.S.. At this stage, only prima facie case
to be considered in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in the
case of RP Kapoor Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1990 SC 66; State of
Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Criminal) 426; and State of Bihar
Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Criminal) 192. The disputed defence of the
applicants cannot be considered at this stage.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any
ground to quash the aforementioned case, therefore, the prayer for
quashing the same is hereby refused and the application is dismissed.

(Chawan Prakash,J.)
May 5, 2026
Rmk.

Digitally signed by :-
RAM MURTI KUSHWAHA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…