Allahabad High Court
VIMLESHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- GAUTAM CHOWDHARY
Holding
The Court refused to quash the non‑bailable warrant, the process, the charge‑sheet and the cognizance order, directing the applicant to surrender and seek bail.
Summary
The applicant filed an application under Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash a non‑bailable warrant, the process under Section 82 CrPC, the charge‑sheet dated 5 January 2026 and the cognizance order dated 22 January 2016 in a case arising under Section 60(1) of the Excise Act. The applicant alleged that no offence was disclosed and that the prosecution was instituted with malafide intent to harass. The Court examined the materials and held that the matter involved factual disputes and an assessment of evidence, and therefore could not be quashed at this stage. Consequently, the Court refused the prayer to quash the warrant and related orders, but directed that the warrant be kept in abeyance for three weeks and that the applicant surrender and apply for bail within that period. The application was thereafter disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the non‑bailable warrant and the process under Section 82 CrPC can be quashed under Section 528 CrPC.
- Whether the charge‑sheet and the cognizance order may be set aside on the ground of lack of disclosed offence and alleged malafide prosecution.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528, 82
- Excise Act — s. 60(1)
Subjects
- Section 528 CrPC
- non‑bailable warrant
- quash of proceedings
- bail
- malafide prosecution
- Excise Act
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 39145 of 2026
Vimlesh
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Vinod Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 75
HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the
State.
2. The present application has been filed praying for quashing non-
bailable-warrant along with process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. order dated
04.08.2026 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasganj in
Criminal Case No. 107 of 2017 (State Vs. Vimlesh) arising out of Case
Crime No. 284 of 2015 under Section 60(1) Excise Act, Police Station
Ganjdundwara, District Kasiram Nagar (Kasganj) as well as to quash the
charge sheet dated 05.01.2026 and also to quash the cognizance order
dated 22.01.2016 as well as proceedings of the aforesaid case.
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. Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant and perused the
materials brought on record, it does not appear to be a fit case praying for
quashing of impugned orders as well as proceedings arising out of
aforesaid case. The prayer praying for quashing of same is hereby
refused, at this stage as the argument raised by learned counsel for the
applicant involves factual disputes and appraisal of evidence.
5. However, looking at the nature of offence alleged and attending facts
and circumstances of the case, as have been brought on record, it is
directed that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the court
below within three weeks from today and applies for bail, his prayer for
bail shall be considered and decided in accordance with law.
6. For a period of three weeks from today, the non-bailable warrant
issued against the applicant shall be kept in abeyance.
NA528 No. 39145 of 2026
2
7. The present application stands disposed of.
(Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.)
September 23, 2026
S.Ali
Digitally signed by :-
SHAUKAT ALI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…