VANSHIKA KATIYAR AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                 APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 31976 of 2026

Vanshika Katiyar And 3 Others
                                                              .....Applicant(s)
                                    Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s)                     :   Ankit Raj, Rinki Gupta
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)                :   G.A., Hasan Parvej

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

1.Heard Ms. Rinki Gupta, learned counsel for applicants, Sri Hasan
Parvej, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned AGA for
State.

2. Present application has been preferred with prayer to quash charge
sheet dated 11.9.2025, cognizance order dated 31.01.2026 and entire
proceeding of Case no. 474 of 2026 arising out of Case Crime no. 0288 of
2025 under sections 318(4), 351(2), 352 BNS, PS- Prem Nagar, District
Bareilly pending before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-5,
Bareilly.

3. Learned counsel for applicants argued that applicants have been falsely
implicated in the present case by opposite party no.2 only to harass them.
Applicant no. 1 is daughter-in-law of opposite party no. 2 while applicant
nos. 2, 3 and 4 are mother, father and brother of applicant no. 1
respectively. Allegation in the FIR is that marriage of applicant no. 1 was
fixed with son of opposite party no. 2 and before marriage applicant no. 1
took certain amount of money from opposite party no. 2 on false promise.
After marriage she again took certain amount of money and certain gold
jewellery and left her matrimonial house extending death threats to family
of opposite party no. 2. Learned counsel for applicants has further
submitted that the present criminal proceeding is abuse of process of law.
Applicants have neither demanded money nor brought any ornaments
from house of opposite party no. 2. Complainant-opposite party no. 2
                                                       NA528 No. 31976 of 2026
                               2


narrated a false and concocted story in the FIR. Since certain matrimonial
disputes are still persisting between the parties before learned court
concerned and as such only in retaliation, present FIR has been lodged
against the applicants in counter-blast. No credible evidence has been
collected during course of investigation. The concerned Investigating
Officer submitted chargesheet against applicant whereupon without
applying its judicial mind, learned court concerned took cognizance of
offence over the said chargesheet 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].

4. Per contra, Sri Hasan Parvej, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2
and 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 applicant, would relate to disputed questions of
fact, and would involve appreciation of evidence.

5. After having the rival contentions raised by learned counsel for parties
and perusal of the entire material available on record, this Court finds that
no case is made out against applicants for proceeding with the trial since
the amount so alleged to be transferred in favour of applicant no. 1 was
after the marriage was settled to be held between applicant no. 1 with the
son of opposite party no. 2 and so far as the second part of the allegations
which has been put forward against the applicant no. 1 in respect of
receiving certain gold items was of the incidence when the applicant no. 1
was leading a married life with the son of the opposite party no. 2 being
the daughter-in-law of opposite party no. 2. Nothing has been
corroborated through the narration of the FIR as well as investigation
conducted by Investigating Officer for implicating the applicant no. 1 in
respect of Section 420 IPC/318(4) of BNS and so far as other sections are
concerned the same are non-cognizable and also not corroborated with the
material collected during investigation, in which sections applicants have
been implicated and summoned in pursuance to cognizance of offence
taken up by learned court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-5,
Bareilly. It is also confirmed in shape of fact which has not been disputed
                                                              NA528 No. 31976 of 2026
                                   3


by either of the learned counsel for the parties that the matrimonial
dispute is still persisting between the parties and there are several matters
preferred at the behest of applicant no. 1 and in retaliation, the instant
matter has been registered at Case Crime no. 0288 of 2025 at the behest
of opposite party no. 2 and as such no case is made out for putting
applicants in unwarranted criminal litigation in pursuance to the
allegation which has been saddled over the applicants.

6. 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
                                                             NA528 No. 31976 of 2026
                                   4


     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 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.'

7. The case in hand, the allegations against the applicant, such as they are,
are wholly insufficient and, prima facie, do not make out a case against
him. Further, they are so farfetched and improbable that no prudent
person can conclude that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against
him. In effect, the present case falls squarely in categories (7) 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.

8. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances as well as in
light of said decisions of Hon'ble the Apex Court, chargesheet dated
11.9.2025 and cognizance/summoning order dated 31.01.2026 along with
entire criminal proceedings of Case no. 474 of 2026 arising out of Case
Crime no. 0288 of 2025 under sections 318(4), 351(2), 352 BNS, PS-
Prem Nagar, District Bareilly, are hereby quashed only in respect of
                                                                                          NA528 No. 31976 of 2026
                                                                   5


                                    applicants herein.

                                    9. Accordingly, the instant application is allowed.



                                                                                      (Saurabh Srivastava,J.)
                                    September 8, 2026
                                    Shaswat




Digitally signed by :-
SHASWAT SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad