Allahabad High Court

MOHD. ABU OBAIDA MANSOORIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 30 April 2026
Bench: CHAWAN PRAKASH

Holding

The Court found that a prima facie case was not absent and therefore refused to quash the charge‑sheet and cognizance order.

Summary

The applicant, Mohd. Abu Obaida Mansoori, filed an application under Section 528 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash the charge‑sheet dated 12‑07‑2022 and the cognizance order dated 09‑05‑2023 in a criminal case pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 4, Allahabad, alleging false implication arising from a family dispute. The applicant argued that the FIR was lodged five days after the alleged incident, there was no injury report, and no prima facie evidence supported the charges. The State contended that the FIR was properly registered, statements of the complainant and other witnesses corroborated the prosecution version, and a charge‑sheet was filed under IPC sections 323, 504 and 427. The Court considered whether, at the stage of a Section 528 application, it could examine disputed facts or was limited to assessing the existence of a prima facie case, referring to Supreme Court precedents such as RP Kapoor v State of Punjab and Bhajan Lal. Finding that a prima facie case was not absent and that factual disputes could not be decided at this stage, the Court refused to quash the proceedings. Accordingly, the application was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court can quash the charge‑sheet and cognizance order under Section 528 CrPC at the pleading stage.
Whether a prima facie case exists against the applicant on the basis of the material on record.
Whether the magistrate erred in taking cognizance of the offence.
Whether factual disputes can be adjudicated in a Section 528 application.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528
Indian Penal Code — s. 147, 323, 427, 504

Subjects

Section 528 CrPC
quash criminal proceeding
prima facie case
cognizance order
IPC offences
magistrate jurisdiction
application dismissed

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 46539 of 2025

Mohd. Abu Obaida Mansoori
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Gaurav Pandey, Mazhar Ullah
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Anas Mahboob, G.A.

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

1. Heard Sri Mazhar Ullah, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Kamal
Dev Rai, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Anas Mahboob, learned
counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and perused the record.

2. The applicant filed the present application under Section 528 B.N.S. to
quash the impugned charge sheet dated 12.07.2022 alontgwilth impugned
cognizance order dated 09.05.2023 as well as entire criminal proceeding of
Case No. 1158 of 2023 (State Vs. Mohd. Abu Obaida Ansari), arising out of
Case Crime No. 126 of 2022, under Sections 323, 504, 427 I.P.C., Police
Station Karely, District Allahabad, pending in the court of Judicial
Magistrate, Court No. 4, Allahabad.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent,
he has not committed the alleged offence but he has been falsely implicated
in this case due to family dispute. Opposite party no. 2 lodged a first
information report as Case Crime No. 126 of 2022, under Sections 323, 147
I.P.C. at Police Station Karely, District Allahabad just to create pressure
upon the applicant. The first information report was lodged after five days of
the occurrence but there is no plausible explanation of delay in lodging the
first information report. There is no injury report to corroborate the
prosecution version and there is no evidence to prove the allegations made in
the first information report. Statements of opposite party no. 2 and other
witnesses were recorded. After investigation, charge sheet was filed under
Sections 323, 504, 427 and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance. As
per evidence, collected during investigation, no prima facie case is made out
NA528 No. 46539 of 2025
2

against the applicant and the learned Magistrate committed illegality in
taking cognizance, therefore, cognizance order and charge sheet are liable to
be set aside.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned
A.G.A. vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for
the applicant and submitted that a first information report was registered
against the applicant. During investigation, statements of opposite party no.
2 and other witnesses were recorded wherein they supported the prosecution
version. After investigation, charge sheet was filed against the applicant and
the learned Magistrate took cognizance against him. He further submitted
that on the basis of evidence collected during investigation, it cannot be said
that no offence is made out against the applicant, therefore, application is
liable to be dismissed.

5. As per facts of the case, a first information report as Case Crime No. 126
of 2022, under Sections 323, 147 I.P.C. at Police Station Karely, District
Allahabad was lodged against the applicant. Statements of opposite party no.
2 and other witnesses were recorded. After investigation, charge sheet was
filed against the applicant under Sections 323, 504, 427 and the learned
Magistrate took cognizance against him.

6. From the perusal of material on record and the facts of the case, at this
stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant. All
the submissions made at the bar relates to the disputed questions on fact,
which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of power
conferred under Section 528 B.N.S.S.. At this stage, only prima facie case to
be considered in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in the case
of RP Kapoor Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1990 SC 66; State of Haryana Vs.
Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Criminal) 426; and State of Bihar Vs. P.P.
Sharma, 1992 SCC (Criminal) 192. The disputed defence of the applicant
cannot be considered at this 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 and the application is dismissed.

May 1, 2026
Rmk.
(Chawan Prakash,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
RAM MURTI KUSHWAHA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…