KAMRAN AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

             HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

             APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 34258 of 2025

Kamran And 2 Others
                                                                 .....Applicant(s)
                                     Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                                    .....Opposite
                                                                          Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)         :   Basharat Ali Khan, Munna Khan,
                                     Rajendra Prasad Shukla, Rishabh Shukla,
                                     Zawwar Haider Naqvi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)    :   G.A.

Court No. - 81
                      HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.

1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant, and the learned A.G.A. for the
State.

2. The present application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been filed by the
applicant for quashing of the impugned order dated 27th March, 2025 as well
as the entire proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 1336 of 2024 (State Vs.
Kanran & Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 225 of 2024, under Sections
147, 148, 149, 332, 353, 325 and 307 I.P.C., Police Station-Tajganj, District-
Agra, pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 23, Agra.
By the order dated 27th March, 2025, the discharge application filed by the
applicants has been rejected. By means of the supplementary affidavit, the
applicants have also challenged the order of framing charge against them
dated 25th July, 2025.

3. Brief facts of the case is that the First Information Report dated 20th April,
2024 has been lodged by O.P, no.2/complainant against the four named
accused and some unknown persons including the applicants by alleging
therein that on the night of 19.04.2024, while police personnel Constables
Amit Kumar Sharma and Abhay Pratap Singh were on night patrol duty under
Police Station Tajganj, Agra, they observed four individuals gathered
suspiciously near an empty plot near ADA Heights. Upon inquiring about their
presence, the four individuals behaved misbehoovingly and engaged in a
scuffle with the officers. When restrained, the individuals acting with common
intention launched a life-threatening assault on the police personnel using an
iron rod and wooden sticks, causing severe injuries to Constable Abhay
Pratap Singh and Constable Amit Kumar Sharma, and tore their official
uniforms. The assailants raised an alarm to obstruct official duty, calling other
                                                         NA528 No. 34258 of 2025
                                 2

local associates from Nagla Mewati who assisted three of the main accused in
fleeing the spot under cover of darkness. During the attempt to apprehend
them, the accused resisted heavily, resulting in minor injuries from falls into
nearby bushes. Three accused individuals were apprehended at the scene,
identified as Kamran, Imran, and Aakaram, all sons of Shamsuddin, residents
of Mohalla Nagla Mewati, Police Station Tajganj, Agra, while their fourth
associate who fled was identified as Shamsuddin. An iron rod was recovered
from Kamran and a stick from Imran, both of which, along with the torn
uniforms of the injured officers, were sealed as evidence. The three accused
were taken into police custody at approximately 23:25 hours under Sections
147, 148, 332, 353, 307, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and a case was
accordingly registered against them.

4. After lodging of the aforesaid first information report, the investigation
proceeded and upon completion of the same, the Investigating Officer has
submitted the charge-sheet against the applicant on which the cognizance has
been taken and the applicant has been summoned. After that the applicants
have been enlarged on bail and filed application for discharge, which has been
rejected vide order dated 27th March, 2025 and the order for framing charge
against the applicants have also been passed. Hence the present application
has been filed.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the First Information
Report has been lodged on the basis of false and frivolous allegations, which
is nothing but an abuse of process of law only with a view to harass the
applicant.

6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has contented that from the allegations made in
the First Information Report cognizable offence is made out against the
applicants. The defence of the applicant cannot be taken into consideration, at
this stage. Therefore, the applicant does not deserve any indulgence.

7. From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the
case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the
applicant. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions
of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482
Cr.P.C./528 B.N.S.S. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen where
the allegation made in the FIR/complaint, even of they are taken at their
entirety, prima facie constitutes cognizable offence against the accused.

8. Position of law for invoking the jurisdiction of inherent power of High Court
has been settled by the Apex Court in following judgments:-

1. R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866;
                                                                                             NA528 No. 34258 of 2025
                                                                     3

                                    2. Kurukshetra University Vs. State of Haryana, (1977) 4 SCC 451;

                                    3. State of West Bengal Vs. Swapan Kumar Guha, (1982) 1 SCC 561;

                                    4. Dhanalakshmi Vs. R. Prasanna Kumar, 1990 Supp SCC 686;

                                    5. State of Haryana & Others Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335;

                                    6. State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 222;

                                    7. B.S. Joshi Vs, State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675;

                                    8. Sanapareddy Maheedhar Seshagiri & another Vs. State of Andhra
                                    Pradesh & another, (2007) 13 SCC 165;

                                    9. State of Telangana Vs. Habib Abdullaha Jilani & others, (2017) 2 SCC
                                    779;

                                    10. M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra &
                                    others, 2021 AIR SC 1918.

                                    9. After considering the totality of facts of the case and keeping in mind the
                                    position of law, there is no merit in the present application. Apart from that
                                    there is no material to show that the complaint/FIR is malafide, frivolous and
                                    vexatious. The version of the first information report and the statements of the
                                    informant/complainant and injured recorded under Sections 161 Cr.P.C./180
                                    B.N.S.S., the medical examination report of the injured, namely, Abhay Pratap
                                    Singh and Amit Sharma and the police documents papers support the
                                    prosecution version. As per the medical examination report, the injured Abhay
                                    Pratap Singh has sustained as many as 10 injuries and Amit Sharma has
                                    sustained as many as 12 injuries including fracture of his rib. The interference
                                    at the threshold of quashing of the criminal proceedings of the present case
                                    cannot be said to be exceptional as it discloses prima facie commission of
                                    cognizable offence.

                                    10.In the result, the prayer for quashing of impugned orders and the entire
                                    proceeding is refused.

                                    11. With the aforesaid observations, the application is dismissed.

                                    September 18, 2026
                                    Sushil/-
                                                                                             (Madan Pal Singh,J.)




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