Allahabad High Court

SURAJ HARIJANversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 13 May 2026
Bench: VIVEK KUMAR SINGH

Holding

The court held that the charge‑sheet and cognizance order are valid, a prima facie case exists, and the application under Section 528 BNSS must be dismissed.

Summary

Suraj Harijan filed an application under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking to quash the criminal proceedings (Case No. 11244 of 2023) instituted against him for offences under Sections 376, 452 and 506 of the IPC. He contended that the FIR was originally lodged for offences under Sections 452 and 354, and that the victim’s later allegation of rape was an after‑thought, unsupported by medical evidence, and therefore the charge‑sheet and cognizance order should be set aside. The State argued that the victim’s statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the CrPC established a prima facie case of rape and that the trial court was the proper forum to evaluate the evidence. The High Court examined the material on record, found no illegality in the charge‑sheet or the cognizance order, and held that a prima facie case existed. Consequently, the application under Section 528 BNSS was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the charge‑sheet and cognizance order can be quashed under Section 528 BNSS on the ground of lack of prima facie case.
Whether a victim’s later statement, uncorroborated by medical evidence, suffices to constitute a prima facie offence of rape.
Whether the doctrine of laches bars the applicant’s petition for quash.

Legislation cited

Bihar National Security Act (BNSS) — s. 528
Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) — s. 161, 164
Indian Penal Code (IPC) — s. 376, 452, 506

Subjects

quash of criminal proceedings
Section 528 BNSS
prima facie case
rape allegation
victim statement
laches
Criminal Procedure Code

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 41867 of 2025

Suraj Harijan
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Saurabh Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 80
HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the
State perused the record.

2. This application has been filed by the applicant to quash the entire
proceeding of Case No. 11244 of 2023 (State vs. Suraj Harijan) arising
out of Case Crime No. 19 of 2023, under Sections 376, 452, 506 of I.P.C.,
Police Station Jugail, District Sonbhadra as well as cognizance order
dated 05.09.2023 and chargesheet dated 04.06.2023, pending in the court
of Civil Judge (Senior Division)/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Sonbhadra.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the proceeding
initiated against the applicant is illegal and against the material available
on record; the material of investigation does not disclose commission of
any alleged offences against the applicant and as such the proceedings
initiated against the applicant including the impugned charge-sheet and
cognizance/summoning order are liable to be quashed by this court.
Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that initially the F.I.R.
was lodged under Sections 452, 354 of I.P.C., but later on the first
informant of the present case improved her story and stated that she was
subjected to rape by the applicant. The statement of the victim recorded
during course of investigation, is an afterthought and the same cannot be
believed. The statement of the victim is not corroborated with medical
evidence, therefore, the chargesheet as well as cognizance order be
NA528 No. 41867 of 2025
2

quashed by this Court.

4. Per contra, learned AGA for the State vehemently opposed the prayer
as made in the application and rebutted the stand taken up by learned
counsel for applicant by way of submitting that the averments whatsoever
has been raised by learned counsel for applicant is subject matter of trial
and submitted that after considering the material available on record,
charge-sheet has been submitted against the applicant upon which learned
court concerned has rightly taken cognizance and summoned the
applicant. It is further submitted that a prima facie offence is made out
from perusal of the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 of
Cr.P.C. and 164 of Cr.P.C., she has categorically stated that she was
subjected to forcible rape by the applicant. The enmity is a double-edged
sword and on account of enmity, this offence was committed by the
applicant. This Court cannot appreciate the evidence at this stage in
Application U/S 528 of B.N.S.S. and it is the function of the trial court
which will decide the case after appreciation of the evidence. At this
stage, this Court is required to see as to whether a prima facie offence is
made out against the applicant or not. In the present case, a prima facie
offence is made out from perusal of statements of the victim. It is further
stated that the impugned order dated 05.09.2023, has been challenged
after more than two years and laches have not been properly explained.
The order sheet of the learned trial court has not been appended
alongwith the present application in order to show current status of the
case.

5. After hearing rival submissions extended by learned counsel for the
parties and by bare perusal of record, there appears to be no illegality and
impropriety in the impugned charge-sheet and cognizance/summoning
order and as such learned court concerned has rightly proceeded against
the applicant.

6. In view thereof, the instant application under Section 528 of B.N.S.S.
lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.

(Vivek Kumar Singh,J.)
May 14, 2026
A.P. Pandey

Digitally signed by :-
ANAND PRAKASH PANDEY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…