Allahabad High Court
AKANKSHA CHAUDHARY AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- SAURABH SRIVASTAVA
Holding
The application under Section 528 BNSS is dismissed as not maintainable.
Summary
The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking to quash an order dated 2 June 2026 issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hapur, which directed the transfer of a disputed amount from the applicants' account to that of the second respondent. The order arose from Miscellaneous Case No. 95 of 2025, which in turn stemmed from Criminal Case No. 221 of 2025 (State vs. Anil Kumar and others) involving offences under Sections 318(4), 316(2), 115(2), 352 and 351(2) of the IPC. The High Court held that the prayer was misconceived because the appropriate adjudication lies with the trial court where the criminal case is pending, and the application was premised on speculative future misconduct rather than a concrete right. Consequently, the Court found no jurisdiction to entertain the application on the basis of apprehension or presumptions of future crime. The application under Section 528 BNSS was therefore dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether an application under Section 528 of the BNSS can be entertained to quash a magistrate's order directing transfer of disputed funds when the underlying criminal case is pending
- Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to interfere with the order on the basis of alleged future unethical conduct by the opposite party
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act — s. 528
- Indian Penal Code — s. 115(2), 316(2), 318(4), 351(2), 352
Subjects
- Section 528
- quash order
- maintainability
- pending criminal case
- ethical behaviour
- High Court of Allahabad
- magistrate's order
- jurisdiction
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 25474 of 2026
Akanksha Chaudhary And Another
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anju Shukla, Rahul Kumar
Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Tanmay Sadh, G.A., Imran
Syed
Court No. - 79
HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. Heard Sri Rahul Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for
applicants, Sri Tanmay Sadh, learned counsel for opposite
party no. 2 and learned AGA for State.
2. Present application has been preferred with prayer to quash
order dated 2.6.2026 passed by learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Hapur in Misc. Case no. 95 of 2025 arising out of
Case Crime no. 221 of 2025 (State vs. Anil Kumar and others)
under sections 318(4), 316(2), 115(2), 352, 351(2) BNS, Police
Station- Babugarh, District Hapur whereby learned court
concerned directed to transfer disputed amount in question
from the account of applicants to the account of respondent no.
2.
3. The prayer as made through instant application is
misconceived. The proper adjudication of the prayer which has
been raised through instant application is need not to be
interfered since cause of action, if arises in favour of the
applicants for seeking similar prayer lies before learned trial
court itself where the matter is pending in shape of Case Crime
no. 221 of 2025, since the cause as shown for seeking prayer as
made through instant application is related to ethical behaviour
which has been warranted from the opposite party no. 2 so that
NA528 No. 25474 of 2026
2
he may not commit any crime in future. No adjudication before
this Court is maintainable at the behest of apprehension and
presumptions or any threat to commit certain further crime in
future.
4. The instant application u/s 528 BNSS stands dismissed.
September 9, 2026
Shaswat
(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SHASWAT SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…