Allahabad High Court
UMARESH @ NETA AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- GAUTAM CHOWDHARY
Holding
The application for quashing under Section 528 CrPC was dismissed as a prima facie case exists and factual disputes cannot be adjudicated at this stage.
Summary
The applicants, Umaresh alias Neta and three others, filed an application under Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash the charge sheet and cognizance order in a case involving offences under Sections 452, 354, 323, 504, 506, 34 of the IPC and Section 8 of the POCSO Act. They alleged that no offence was disclosed and that the prosecution was instituted with malafide intent to harass. The High Court held that the application raised factual disputes that cannot be decided at the stage of a Section 528 application and that a prima facie case exists, referring to Supreme Court precedents. Consequently, the court refused to quash the proceedings and dismissed the application, leaving the applicants free to pursue other remedies. The decision underscores that the court’s power under Section 528 is limited to assessing the existence of a prima facie case, not the veracity of evidence.
Issues considered
- Whether the application under Section 528 CrPC for quashing the criminal proceeding can be entertained when the dispute is purely factual.
- Whether a prima facie case exists against the applicants sufficient to deny the quash order.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 34, 354, 452, 504, 506
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 8
Subjects
- Section 528 CrPC
- quash criminal proceeding
- prima facie case
- factual dispute
- POCSO Act
- criminal procedure
- harassment claim
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 40749 of 2026
Umaresh @ Neta And 3 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Kunvar Singh, Raghuraj Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 75
HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, 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 quash the charge sheet dated 09.05.2021, cognizance order
dated 11.11.2021 as well as entire proceeding of S.S.T. No. 1326 of 2021
(State Vs. Umaresh alias Neta and others), arising out of Case Crime No.
870 of 2020, under Sections 452, 354, 323, 504, 506, 34 I.P.C. and
Section 8 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, Police
Station Akbarpur, District Kanpur Dehat, pending in the court of learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 13/ Special Judge, POCSO Act,
Kanpur Dehat.
3. The contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that no offence
against the applicants 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 applicants
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
Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC
NA528 No. 40749 of 2026
2
(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, leaving it open to the applicants to recourse
other remedy available to them.
(Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.)
September 23, 2026
Mustaqeem.
Digitally signed by :-
MOHD MUSTAQEEM KHAN
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…