SATISH AND 5 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                 APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 45933 of 2025

Satish And 5 Others
                                                                    .....Applicant(s)
                                        Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s)                  :   Gyanendra Prasad Mahant
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)             :   G.A., Sanjeev Kumar Mishra

Court No. - 79
                     HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J.

1. Heard Mr. Gyanendra Prasad Mahant, learned Counsel for applicants,
Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for State and perused the
record.

2. This application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed by the applicants
with the following prayer:

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be
pleased to allow the instant application by quashing the charge sheet dated
14.10.2025 and the cognizance with summoning order dated 01.11.2025 passed by the
learned Judicial Magistrate-III, Aligarh as well as the entire proceedings of Case No.
1883/2025, (State vs. Satish & others) arising out of Case Crime No. 286/2025, under
sections 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 352, 351(2), 109, 117(2) BNS, Police Station
Akrabad, District Aligarh, presently pending before the Court of learned Judicial
Magistrate-III, Aligarh, So that justice be done, otherwise the applicants shall suffer
irreparable loss and hard injury."

3. Learned Counsel for the applicants submits that they are innocent and
have been falsely implicated in the present case due to Gram Panchayat
Election rivalry. Opposite party no.2 lodged a First Information Report as
Case Crime No. 286 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 352,
351(2), 109 and 117(2) BNS against the applicants at Police Station
Akrabad, District Aligarh with an allegation that they have committed
marpeet with him using weapon lathi danda, sword and iron rod. Injured
Gautam, Durgesh Dixit, Rajkumar and Deepu were medically examined but
                                                        NA528 No. 45933 of 2025
                                2


the injuries were not of such a nature which constitute an offence under
Section 307 I.P.C. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed
against the applicants and learned Magistrate has taken cognizance against
them, whereas no prima facie case is made out against the applicants,
therefore, the cognizance order as well as entire proceedings of the aforesaid
case may be quashed.

4. Per contra, learned Counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as learned
A.G.A. have submitted that the applicants have beaten the opposite party
no.2 and his family members with iron rods and lathi danda due to which
four persons sustained injuries. They have further submitted that from the
perusal of the allegations made in the F.I.R., the statements of the informant
and witnesses, injury report and the material collected during the course of
investigation, prima facie offence is clearly made out against the applicants
and as such, entire proceedings cannot be quashed.

5. As per record, opposite party no.2 lodged a First Information Report as
Case Crime No. 286 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 352,
351(2), 109 and 117(2) BNS against the applicants at Police Station
Akrabad, District Aligarh regarding the incident dated 11.06.2025. Injured
Gautam, Durgesh Dixit, Rajkumar and Deepu were medically examined.
During investigation, statements of the informant and other witnesses were
recorded. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against
the applicants and learned Magistrate has taken cognizance against them
vide order dated 01.11.2025.

6. 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
applicants. All the submission made at the Bar relates to the disputed
question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise
of power conferred 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. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this
                                                                                         NA528 No. 45933 of 2025
                                                                   3


                                    stage.

                                    7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any
                                    ground to quash the aforementioned case, therefore, the prayer for quashing
                                    the same is hereby refused.

                                    8. Accordingly, the application under Section 528 BNSS is dismissed.



                                                                                        (Chawan Prakash,J.)
                                    April 29, 2026
                                    Vijay




Digitally signed by :-
VIJAY KUMAR SAHU
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad