Allahabad High Court
VINAY PRAKASH MADHESHIYA AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- CHAWAN PRAKASH
Holding
The trial court did not commit any illegality in framing charges; a prima facie case exists, and the application is dismissed.
Summary
The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking to quash the order dated 23‑09‑2022 that framed charges against them in a criminal case (Case No. 5404 of 2017) involving offences under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 406 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The prosecution alleged that the complainant and other witnesses gave statements supporting the charges, leading the investigating officer to file a charge‑sheet and the trial court to take cognizance. The applicants contended that the statements did not establish a prima facie case and that the trial court erred in framing charges. The court examined the evidence on record and held that the statements of the complainant and witnesses were sufficient to make out a prima facie case. Consequently, the court found no illegality in the trial court's order. The application was dismissed as being devoid of merit.
Issues considered
- Whether the order framing charges against the applicants is illegal and liable to be set aside.
- Whether a prima facie case exists under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 406 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Legislation cited
- BNSS Act — s. 528
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 406, 498A, 504, 506
Subjects
- criminal procedure
- quash application
- prima facie case
- Section 528 BNSS
- IPC offences
- Dowry Prohibition Act
- charge framing
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 34483 of 2026
Vinay Prakash Madheshiya And 3 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Kundan Kumar, Shivendra Pratap
Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 83
HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Jyoti Kumar Singh, learned
A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. The present application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been filed with
the prayer to quash the impugned order dated 23.09.2022 passed by the
learned Civil Jude/F.T.C. Kushinagar at Padrauna, in Case No. 5404 of 2017
(State Vs. Vinay Madheshiya) arising out of Case Crime No. 5 of 2017,
under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 406 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police
Station Mahila Thana, District Kushinagar whereby charges were framed
against the applicants.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the opposite party no. 2
lodged a first information report registered as Case Crime No. 5 of 2017,
under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 406 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act at Police
Station Mahila Thana, District Kushinagar against the applicants. During the
investigation, statements of opposite party no. 2 and other witnesses were
recorded. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against
the applicants. He further submits that according to the statements recorded
during investigation, no prima facie case is made out against the applicants.
The learned trial court failed to properly appreciate the evidence and framed
charges against the applicants by impugned order dated 23.09.2022,
therefore, the impugned order is illegal and liable to be set aside.
4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the submissions
NA528 No. 34483 of 2026
2
advanced by learned counsel for the applicants and submitted that opposite
party no. 2 lodged a first information report as Case Crime No. 5 of 2017,
under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 406 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act at Police
Station Mahila Thana, District Kushinagar against the applicants. During the
investigation, statements of opposite party no. 2 and other witnesses were
recorded wherein they fully supported the prosecution version. After
investigation, charge sheet was filed against the applicants and the learned
Magistrate took cognizance. He further submits that, on the basis of
evidence collected during investigation, it cannot be said that no offence is
made out against the applicants, therefore, application is liable to be
dismissed.
5. According to the facts of this case, the opposite party no. 2 lodged a first
information report as Case Crime No. 5 of 2017, under Sections 498A, 323,
504, 506, 406 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act at Police Station Mahila Thana, District
Kushinagar against the applicants. During the investigation, statements of
opposite party no. 2 and other witnesses were recorded. On the basis of oral
and documentary evidence collected during investigation, the Investigating
Officer filed charge sheet against the applicants and the learned Magistrate
took cognizance.
6. On the basis of the statements of the opposite party no. 2 and other
witnesses, a prima facie case under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 406 IPC
and 3/4 D.P. Act is made out against the applicants. The learned trial court
has not committed any illegality in passing the impugned order.
7. The application being devoid of merit is dismissed.
(Chawan Prakash,J.)
September 8, 2026
Rmk.
Digitally signed by :-
RAM MURTI KUSHWAHA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…