Allahabad High Court
VIJAY SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- VIVEK KUMAR SINGH
Holding
The court held that there was no illegality in the impugned charge‑sheet and cognizance order, and therefore the application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. was dismissed.
Summary
The applicant, Vijay Singh, filed an application under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. seeking to quash a charge‑sheet dated 29‑03‑2024 and a cognizance order dated 13‑09‑2024 in a criminal case (Case No. 16384 of 2024) involving offences under various IPC sections. He contended that the investigation material did not disclose any offence on his part and that the proceedings were illegal. The State opposed, arguing that the allegations were matters for trial and that the charge‑sheet was properly filed, justifying the cognizance and summons. The High Court examined the record and found no illegality or impropriety in the charge‑sheet or the cognizance order. Consequently, the court concluded that the application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. lacked merit and dismissed it.
Issues considered
- Whether the charge‑sheet and cognizance order against the applicant can be quashed under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. on the ground of insufficient material evidence.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 528
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120-B, 323, 342, 354(b), 376, 504
Subjects
- quash of charge sheet
- Section 528 B.N.S.S.
- cognizance order
- criminal procedure
- high court dismissal
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 28661 of 2025
Vijay Singh
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Pragati, Shaili Ganguly
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Rajeev Kumar Pal
Court No. - 80
HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the
State perused the record.
2. This application has been filed by the applicant to quash the charge-
sheet dated 29.3.2024 and cognizance order dated 13.9.2024 in Case No.
16384 of 2024 (State vs. Sunil and others) arising out of Case Crime No.
49 of 2024, under Sections 342, 323, 504, 376, 354(b), 120-B IPC, Police
Station Pallavpuram, District Meerut pending before Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 3, Meerut.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the proceeding
initiated against the applicant is illegal and against the material available
on record; the material of investigation does not disclose commission of
any alleged offences against the applicant and as such the proceedings
initiated against the applicant including the impugned charge-sheet and
cognizance/summoning order are liable to be quashed by this court.
4. Per contra, learned AGA for the State vehemently opposed the prayer
as made in the application and rebutted the stand taken up by learned
counsel for applicant by way of submitting that the averments whatsoever
has been raised by learned counsel for applicant is subject matter of trial
and submitted that after considering the material available on record,
charge-sheet has been submitted against the applicant upon which learned
court concerned has rightly taken cognizance and summoned the
applicant.
NA528 No. 28661 of 2025
2
5. After hearing rival submissions extended by learned counsel for the
parties and by bare perusal of record, there appears to be no illegality and
impropriety in the impugned charge-sheet and cognizance/summoning
order and as such learned court concerned has rightly proceeded against
the applicant.
6. In view thereof, the instant application under Section 528 B.N.S.S.
lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.
(Vivek Kumar Singh,J.)
May 7, 2026
Lalit Shukla
Digitally signed by :-
LALIT KUMAR SHUKLA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…