Allahabad High Court
SONU ALIAS SHAHIN ALI AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- SANJIV KUMAR
Holding
The application under Section 528 BNSS is allowed, and the charge-sheet, cognizance order, and the entire criminal proceedings are quashed.
Summary
The applicants sought quash of a charge-sheet and cognizance order in a case under Section 506 IPC for a threatening letter allegedly dropped at the complainant's shop. The FIR named no specific accused and the investigation produced no witness testimony placing the applicants at the scene, nor did the typed letter bear any identifying marks. The High Court examined the provisions of Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and applied the Supreme Court's guidelines from State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal, concluding that the allegations did not prima facie constitute an offence and the proceedings were an abuse of process. It also held that the cognizance order was passed mechanically without judicial scrutiny. Consequently, the Court allowed the application and quashed the charge-sheet, cognizance order, and the entire criminal proceedings.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR and charge-sheet under Section 506 IPC disclose a prima facie case against the applicants sufficient to justify continuation of criminal proceedings.
- Whether the High Court can quash the proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS on the ground of lack of evidence and abuse of process.
- Whether the cognizance and summoning order were passed in accordance with the requirements of judicial mind as mandated by law.
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 528
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 155(2), 156(1)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 506
Subjects
- quash of criminal proceedings
- Section 528 BNSS
- Section 506 IPC
- abuse of process
- cognizance order
- lack of evidence
- FIR
Judgment
Judgment Reserved On: 17.04.2026
Judgment Delivered On:23.04.2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 29633 of 2025
Sonu Alias Shahin Ali And Another
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Manish Kumar Singh, Pavan Kishore
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Nigamendra Shukla
Court No. - 83
HON'BLE SANJIV KUMAR, J.
1. Heard Mr. Pavan Kishore, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr.
Nigamendra Shukla, learned counsel for opposite party no.2, learned
AGA on behalf of the State and perused the record.
2. This application, u/s 528 Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, (in
short BNSS), has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash
charge-sheet dated 03.05.2024, cognizance order dated 12.08.2024 as
well as entire proceedings of Case No. 1609 of 2024 (State Vs. Sonu @
Shahin Ali and another), arising out of Case Crime No. 200 of 2024,
under Sections 506 IPC, Police Station Kankarkhera, District Meerut,
pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Court No. 3, Meerut.
3. Brief facts giving rise to the present application are that opposite party
no.2, Sahil, lodged an FIR against the applicants, stating that the first
informant has a clothes shop in Nagla Tashi, Police Station Kankarkhera,
in the name of Fashion Villa. On 21.03.2024, when he opened his shop’s
shutter, he found a letter containing threats and abuses to him. He further
alleged that there is a dispute with regard to two plots between him and
his Uncle (Tau), Marhoom Asgar’s, sons Shahin Ali and his elder brother
Nazar. Both the aforesaid plots were allegedly illegally sold by Sonu @
Shahin Ali and the first informant has lodged a case against him, which is
pending before the court. It is further alleged that the he has suspicion that
NA528 No. 29633 of 2025
2
Sonu @ Shahin Ali and his brother Nazar have sent this threatening letter
and they have earlier also threatened him as well.
4. Upon this information, FIR under Section 506 IPC was lodged against
the applicants and after collecting evidence, charge-sheet under the
aforesaid Section was filed against the applicants.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are
neither named in the FIR nor is there any evidence against them to
suggest that they had dropped the alleged threatening letter in first
informant’s shop. There is no evidence against them and no offence under
Section 506 IPC is made out, therefore, the proceedings are liable to be
quashed.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has submitted that
the FIR was lodged on correct facts. The Investigating Officer, after
collecting the evidence, has filed charge-sheet before the competent court.
It is further submitted that it is to be seen during the course of trial
whether the offence has been committed or not, therefore, this application
has no force and it is liable to be dismissed.
7. Learned AGA has defended the impugned charge-sheet, cognizance
order as well as entire criminal proceedings.
8. In view of submission of learned counsel for the parties and upon
perusal of material on record, it is not in dispute that the FIR was lodged
under Section 506 IPC, upon suspicion against the applicants. It is the
case of the prosecution that a threatening letter was dropped by the
applicants in first informant’s shop. The FIR was lodged on suspicion and
the Investigating Officer has recorded statement of witnesses, however,
none of them have stated that they saw the applicants dropping the said
letter in first informant’s shop. It is also relevant to note that admittedly,
the above letter giving threat, is a typed document, which does not bear
name(s), contact number(s) or signature(s) of any person, including the
applicants. In view of the above, the charge-sheet has been filed on the
basis of no evidence.
9. In the landmark case State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal (1992
Supp. (1) SCC 335), a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India
NA528 No. 29633 of 2025
3
considered in detail, the provisions of section 482 (now Section 528
BNSS) and the power of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings or
FIR. The Supreme Court summarized the legal position by laying the
following guidelines to be followed by High Courts in exercise of their
inherent powers to quash a criminal complaint:
"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 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 concerned Act (under
which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the
NA528 No. 29633 of 2025
4
institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or,
where there is a specific provision in the Code or the
concerned Act, 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."
10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Fakhruddin Ahmad V State of
Uttaranchal, (2008) 17 SCC 157 also held as under:-
“Nevertheless, it is well settled that before a
Magistrate can be said to have taken cognizance of an
offence, it is imperative that he must have taken
notice of the accusations and applied his mind to the
allegations made in the complaint or in the police
report or the information received from a source other
than a police report, as the case may be, and the
material filed therewith. It needs little emphasis that
it is only when the Magistrate applies his mind and is
satisfied that the allegations, if proved, would
constitute an offence and decides to initiate
proceedings against the alleged offender, that it can
be positively stated that he has taken cognizance of
the offence. Cognizance is in regard to the offence and
not the offender.”
11. In view of the above legal position and the material on record the
allegations made in the FIR and the evidence collected by the I.O. are
such nature, which makes it so 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. Therefore, on the
basis of above discussion and the case law cited above, it is clear that
without collecting any sufficient evidence, charge-sheet has been filed
against the applicants and consequently the entire criminal proceedings
amounts to an abuse of process of law.
12. Beside this, it is settled law that the cognizance and summoning of an
NA528 No. 29633 of 2025
5
accused, in a criminal case, is a serious matter and the order must reflect
that Magistrate had applied his mind to the facts as well as law applicable
thereto, and also the allegations and evidence in support thereof. Looking
into the above the impugned cognizance and summoning order passed by
the concerned court shows that it was passed in mechanical manner
without application of judicial mind.
13. In view of the above discussion, the application has force in it and the
entire criminal proceedings of the case amounts to an abuse of process of
law.
14. Therefore, this application is allowed and charge-sheet dated
03.05.2024, cognizance order dated 12.08.2024 as well as entire
proceedings of Case No. 1609 of 2024 (State Vs. Sonu @ Shahin Ali and
another), arising out of Case Crime No. 200 of 2024, under Sections 506
IPC, Police Station Kankarkhera, District Meerut, pending in the Court of
learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 3, Meerut, are
hereby quashed.
(Sanjiv Kumar,J.)
April 23, 2026
Subham
Digitally signed by :-
SUBHAM KUSHWAHA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…