Allahabad High Court
PARVEZ @ KALAversusSTATE OF U.P., THROUGH ITS HOME SECRETARY U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- GAUTAM CHOWDHARY
Holding
The Court held that the application under Section 528 cannot be entertained to quash the charge sheet as the matter involves factual disputes and only a prima facie case is required, leading to the refusal of the prayer.
Summary
The applicant, Parvez @ Kala, filed an application under Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to set aside the cognizance order dated 31‑07‑2024 and to quash the charge sheet dated 12‑06‑2024 in a Sessions trial involving offences under IPC Section 307, the Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act and the Arms Act. He alleged that no offence was disclosed against him and that the prosecution was instituted with a malafide intention to harass. The Court observed that the contentions raised pertained to factual disputes and that under Section 528 the court is limited to examining whether a prima facie case exists, not to adjudicate the truth of the allegations. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that a prima facie case was evident and therefore the application could not be entertained to quash the proceedings. Consequently, the prayer for quashing was refused and the application was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether an application under Section 528 CrPC can be entertained to quash a charge sheet when the dispute is purely factual.
- Whether a prima facie case exists against the applicant in the present proceedings.
- Whether the prosecution was instituted with malafide intent warranting dismissal of the charge sheet.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25, 27, 3
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528
- Indian Penal Code — s. 307
- Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act — s. 3, 5
Subjects
- Section 528
- quash charge sheet
- prima facie case
- criminal procedure
- IPC 307
- Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act
- Arms Act
- malafide prosecution
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 40728 of 2026
Parvez @ Kala
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P., Through Its Home Secretary U.P.
And Another .....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Atul Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 75
HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. 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 set aside the cognizance order dated 31.07.2024 as well as
for quashing of charge sheet dated 12.06.2024 including the entire
proceeding of Sessions Trial No. 2177 of 2024 (State Vs. Kaleem and
others), arising out of Case Crime No. 133 of 2024, under Section 307
I.P.C. read with Section 3/5/ of Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act and
Section 3/25/27 of Arms Act, Police Station New Mandi, District
Muzaffar Nagar, pending in the court of learned Additional District
Judge, Court No. 6, Muzaffar Nagar.
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. 40728 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 23, 2026
Mustaqeem.
Digitally signed by :-
MOHD MUSTAQEEM KHAN
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…