Allahabad High Court

SAURABH KATIYARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 22 September 2026
Bench: NAND PRABHA SHUKLA

Holding

The High Court refused to quash the proceedings, finding no prima facie case or abuse of process warranting interference.

Summary

The applicant filed an application under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking to quash the proceedings of Case No. 31977 of 2025, which arose from a criminal case against Mahesh Chandra and others. The applicant alleged that the magistrate had treated the matter as a complaint, issued a notice under Section 223 BNSS without summoning the applicant, and that the applicant was released on bail. The High Court examined the record and held that at the preliminary stage there was no indication of a prima facie offence against the applicant and that the disputed factual issues could not be decided at this stage. Consequently, the Court found no ground to invoke its power to prevent abuse of process and refused the prayer to quash the proceedings. However, the Court directed that if the applicant files a bail application within four weeks, it will be considered expeditiously, and no coercive measures will be taken for 30 days.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court should quash the proceedings of Case No. 31977 of 2025 under Section 528 BNSS.
Whether there is a prima facie case against the applicant justifying interference.
Whether the magistrate’s issuance of notice under Section 223 BNSS without summoning the applicant amounts to abuse of process.

Legislation cited

BNSS — s. 115(2), 223, 351(2), 352, 528

Subjects

Section 528 application
quash proceedings
abuse of process
bail
magistrate notice
prima facie offence
BNSS

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 34872 of 2026

Saurabh Katiyar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Aditi Srivastava, Vijay Kumar Dubey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 80
HON'BLE NAND PRABHA SHUKLA, J.

1. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant, is
taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Vijay Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant, learned
AGA for the State and perused the record.

3. The present application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed with a
prayer to allow this application by quashing the entire proceedings of Case
No. 31977 of 2025, arises out of Case Crime No. 163 of 2025 (State Vs.
Mahesh Chandra and others) under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(2) B.N.S.,
Police Station Araul, District Kanpur Dehat pending in the Court of learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-IIIrd, Kanpur Dehat together with
impugned charge-sheet dated 23.09.2025 and impugned notice/summoning
order dated 23.12.2025 passed by the learned Magistrate.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Magistrate
without application of mind treated the case as complaint case and issued
notice under section 223 of BNSS but without summoning the applicant,
the applicant was released on bail of his surrender application.

5. From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the
case, at this stage, it cannot be said that prima facie 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.
Only in cases where the Court finds that there has been failure of justice or
misuse of judicial mechanism or procedure, sentence or order was not
NA528 No. 34872 of 2026
2

correct, this power may be exercised to prevent the abuse of process of
miscarriage of justice. Therefore, no interference is required.

6. Accordingly, prayer of the applicant is refused.

7. However, considering the prayer made by learned counsel for the
applicant, it is directed that in case the applicant applies for bail before the
concerned court within four weeks from today, the same shall be considered
and disposed of expeditiously in the light of law laid down by the Apex
Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation and another, reported in (2021) 10 SCC 773.

8. For a period of 30 days from today or till the time of applying the bail
application before the court concerned, whichever is earlier, no coercive
measures shall be taken against the applicant.

9. With the above observations, this application is disposed of.

(Nand Prabha Shukla,J.)
September 23, 2026
Puspendra

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…