Allahabad High Court
SANJAY SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- GAUTAM CHOWDHARY
Holding
The court held that under Section 528 CrPC, the court cannot adjudicate factual disputes and must only determine the existence of a prima facie case, thus refusing the prayer to quash the proceedings.
Summary
The applicant, Sanjay Singh, filed an application under Section 528 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash the criminal proceedings (Special Case No. 0059 of 2025) arising from a charge of assault under Section 323 IPC, alleged child marriage offences under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, and sexual offences under the POCSO Act. The applicant alleged that the prosecution was malicious and that no offence was disclosed against him. The court observed that the contentions raised pertained to factual disputes and the assessment of evidence, which cannot be decided at the stage of a Section 528 application. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the court held that only a prima facie case is required for such applications and that the court is not required to evaluate the reliability of the allegations. Consequently, the prayer to quash the proceedings was refused and the application was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether a Section 528 application can be entertained when the dispute involves factual issues and evidence assessment.
- Whether the existence of a prima facie case suffices to reject a prayer for quashing criminal proceedings.
- Whether allegations of malicious prosecution can be considered at the Section 528 stage.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 528
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323
- Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 — s. 10, 9
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 16, 17
Subjects
- Section 528 CrPC
- quash of criminal proceedings
- prima facie case
- malicious prosecution
- child marriage
- POCSO Act
- procedural law
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 37078 of 2026
Sanjay Singh
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ajay Sengar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Vaibhav Shandilya
Court No. - 75
HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State as
well as Shri Vaibhav Shandilya, learned counsel for the informant and
perused the material brought on record.
2. The present application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed with
the prayer to quash the entire proceeding of Special Case No. 0059 of
2025 (State Vs. Sanjay Singh and others), arising out of Case Crime No.
0004 of 2025, under Section 323 I.P.C. read with Section 9/ 10 of
Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 and Section 16/ 17 of Protection
of Children From Sexual Offences Act, Police Station Churkhi, District
Jalaun, pending in the court of learned Additional District and Sessions
Judge/ Special Judge (POCSO Act), Jalaun at Orai. Further prayer has
been made for quashing of the order dated 13.03.2026, whereby charge
has been framed against the applicant.
3. The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that no offence
against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been
instituted with a malafide intention for the purpose of causing harassment.
He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his
contention.
4. At this stage, the argument raised by learned counsel for the applicant
involves adjudication of a factual dispute and appraisal of evidence.
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 no offence is made out against
the applicant at this stage. All the submissions made at the bar, relate to
the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this
Court under Section 528 BNSS. At this stage only prima facie case is to
be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of
Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs.
NA528 No. 37078 of 2026
2
P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical
Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC
(Cr.) 283.
6. This Court in exercise of its power under Section 528 BNSS is not
required to assess the correctness of the allegations and reliability of
evidence. Thus, the prayer for quashing is refused.
7. The present application lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed.
8. Dismissed accordingly.
(Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.)
September 14, 2026
Mustaqeem.
Digitally signed by :-
MOHD MUSTAQEEM KHAN
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…