SIBBU KUMAR @ SIBBU AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

           APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 27801 of 2026

Sibbu Kumar @ Sibbu And Another
                                                               .....Applicant(s)
                                    Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                                  .....Opposite
                                                                        Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)          : Lal Mani Singh, Praveen Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)     : G.A.

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

1. This matter is being taken up in the date fixed category.

2. Heard learned counsel for applicants and learned AGA for State.
Supplementary affidavit preferred at the behest applicants in Court is taken
on record.

3. Although notice which was issued earlier has already been served upon
opposite party no.2, in spite of that, no one appeared on behalf of opposite
party no.2 even in the revised call either in person or through counsel. It is
the moral and judicial obligation of any person to appear before the Court
for contesting the matter against whom notices was issued and thereafter
served. In case of non-appearance of opposite party no.2 after service of
notice, there is no option left before the Court, but to consider the prayer so
made through the instant application on the basis of material available on
record as well as the arguments so made by learned counsel for the
applicants.

4. Present application has been preferred with prayer to quash the entire
proceeding of Case no.166877 of 2025 (State vs. Gullu @ Gulshan Nishad
and Others) arising out of Case Crime no.270 of 2024 under sections 190,
191(2), 115(2), 351(3), 352, 324(4) BNS, Police Station- Nawabganj,
District- Kanpur Nagar, pending before learned court of Judicial Magistrate,
Court No.3, Kanpur Nagar, including charge sheet dated 26.12.2024 and
cognizance order dated 01.09.2025.

5. Learned counsel for applicants argued that applicants have been falsely
                                                        NA528 No. 27801 of 2026
                                2


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 has
also been argued by learned counsel for applicants that all the injuries
sustained by the injured are simple in nature and so far as the injuries cause
to the injured, the present applicants are not the author of same; the material
evidences which has been collected during the course of investigation clearly
shows that there is hardly any ingredients for attraction of section 190,
191(2) BNS against the applicants, otherwise all the other sections are non-
cognizable offences and the implication of applicants are nothing but to
implicate them for settling his personal scores between the parties. So far as
criminal history of the applicants is concerned, the same has already been
explained, wherein it has been transpired that matter has already been
compromise between the parties. Learned counsel for applicants lastly
submitted that if there is hardly any allegation levelled against applicants
then under which circumstance, the concerned Investigating Officer
submitted charge-sheet against them whereupon without applying its judicial
mind, learned court concerned took cognizance of offence over the said
charge-sheet 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 counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as 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; but at the same time, he could not dispute the
above submissions made by learned counsel for applicants specifically in
respect of applicant herein.

7. After having the rival contentions raised by learned counsel for parties
and upon perusal of 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 are entirely vague and general in nature and the alleged
FIR is totally based on concocted story; the material evidences collected
during the course of investigation does not corroborate any offence against
the applicants herein. In a similar matter, in the case of Sanjay D. Jain &
others Vs. State of Maharashtra & others [2025 LiveLaw (SC) 960],
                                                              NA528 No. 27801 of 2026
                                   3


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 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
     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
                                                                                                 NA528 No. 27801 of 2026
                                                                       4

                                         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
                                         him due to private and personal grudge.'

                                    9. 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) and (3) 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.

                                    10. 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 Case
                                    no.166877 of 2025 (State vs. Gullu @ Gulshan Nishad and Others) arising
                                    out of Case Crime no.270 of 2024 under sections 190, 191(2), 115(2),
                                    351(3), 352, 324(4) BNS, Police Station- Nawabganj, District- Kanpur
                                    Nagar, pending before learned court of Judicial Magistrate, Court No.3,
                                    Kanpur Nagar, including charge sheet dated 26.12.2024 and cognizance
                                    order dated 01.09.2025, are hereby quashed in respect of applicants herein
                                    .

                                    11. Accordingly, the instant application is allowed.

                                    September 29, 2026
                                    Saif
                                                                                             (Saurabh Srivastava,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad