Allahabad High Court
RAFAQATversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- GAUTAM CHOWDHARY
Holding
The prayer for quashing the criminal proceedings under Section 528 is refused and the application is dismissed.
Summary
The applicant filed an application under Section 528 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash the criminal proceedings (S.T. No. 1143 of 2025) pending against him in the Kanpur Sessions Court. He alleged that no offence was disclosed against him and that the prosecution was instituted with malafide intent to harass. The High Court observed that the dispute centered on factual issues and the evidence could not be evaluated at the interlocutory stage; only a prima facie case is required for a Section 528 application. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that it is not required to assess the correctness of the allegations or the reliability of evidence at this stage. Consequently, the prayer to quash the proceedings was refused and the application was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether a criminal proceeding can be quashed under Section 528 of the CrPC on the ground that no offence is disclosed and the prosecution is malafide.
- Whether the High Court can evaluate the factual disputes and evidence at the interlocutory stage of a Section 528 application.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528
- Criminal Law Amendment Act — s. 7
- Indian Penal Code — s. 147, 148, 149, 153, 323, 336, 34, 427, 504, 506
- Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act — s. 3, 4
Subjects
- Section 528
- quash criminal proceeding
- prima facie case
- malafide prosecution
- High Court
- interlocutory application
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 37600 of 2026
Rafaqat
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Kamal Kishor Mishra, Vivek Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 75
HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Pankaj Saxena, learned
A.G.A.-I for the State 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 S.T. No. 1143 of 2025 (State
Vs. Rafaqat and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 43 of 2025, under
Sections 147, 148, 149, 153, 323, 336, 427, 504, 506 and 34 I.P.C., read
with Section 7 of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act and Section 3/4 of
Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, Police Station Bekanganj,
District Kanpur Nagar, pending in the court of learned Additional District
and Sessions Judge, Court No. 18, Kanpur Nagar. Further prayer has been
made to quash the order dated 25.06.2026, whereby discharge application
moved on behalf of applicant has been rejected.
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.
P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical
NA528 No. 37600 of 2026
2
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 9, 2026
Mustaqeem.
Digitally signed by :-
MOHD MUSTAQEEM KHAN
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…