Allahabad High Court
RAJ BAHADUR AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- GAUTAM CHOWDHARY
Holding
The court held that the application for quashing under Section 528 CrPC must be dismissed as only a prima facie case is required and factual disputes cannot be adjudicated at this stage.
Summary
The applicants, Raj Bahadur and another, filed an application under Section 528 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to set aside the summons dated 09‑12‑2024, quash the charge‑sheet dated 13‑04‑2024 and the entire proceeding (Case No. 353 of 2024) arising under Sections 2 and 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. They contended that no offence was disclosed and that the prosecution was instituted with malafide intent to harass. The court examined the material on record and observed that the dispute centred on factual issues and the credibility of evidence, which cannot be decided at the stage of a Section 528 application. Relying on Supreme Court precedents (R.P. Kapur, Bhajan Lal, P.P. Sharma and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works), the court held that only a prima facie case is required and the court is not required to assess the truth of the allegations. Consequently, the prayer for quashing was refused and the application was dismissed. The judgment was delivered by Justice Gautam Chowdhary on 23 September 2026.
Issues considered
- Whether a criminal proceeding can be quashed under Section 528 CrPC when the dispute involves factual issues and the existence of an offence is not yet established.
- Whether the allegations under Sections 2/3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act disclose a cognizable offence.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528
- Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act — s. 2, 3
Subjects
- Section 528 CrPC
- quashing of criminal proceedings
- prima facie case
- factual dispute
- Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act
- harassment
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 40833 of 2026
Raj Bahadur And Another
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dinesh Kumar Maurya, Kamala
Shanker Yadav
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 set aside the summoning order dated 09.12.2024 as well as
for quashing of charge sheet dated 13.04.2024 as well as entire
proceeding of Case No. 353 of 2024 (State Vs. Raj Bahadur and others),
arising out of Case Crime No. 70 of 2024, under Section 2/3 of
Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, Police Station Sujanganj,
District Jaunpur.
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
(Cr.) 283.
NA528 No. 40833 of 2026
2
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…