Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

MOHIT SINGH AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided

Holding

The Court held that a prima facie case exists and therefore the application to quash the proceedings under Section 528 BNSS is dismissed.

Summary

The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking to quash the charge‑sheet, cognizance order and the entire criminal proceedings (Criminal Case No. 23128 of 2025) arising from an FIR alleging assault under Sections 115(2), 352 and 351(3) BNS. They argued that the FIR was lodged six hours after the alleged incident, the injuries were minor, and no prima facie case existed, warranting dismissal of the proceedings. The State contended that the magistrate had properly taken cognizance after reviewing the FIR and investigation material, establishing a prima facie offence. The High Court examined the record and, relying on Supreme Court precedents, held that the question of defence and factual disputes cannot be decided at the stage of a Section 528 application; only the existence of a prima facie case is relevant. Finding that a prima facie case does exist, the Court refused the prayer to quash and dismissed the application.

Issues considered

  • Whether the High Court can quash criminal proceedings under Section 528 BNSS when only a prima facie case is alleged.
  • Whether the material on record establishes a prima facie case against the applicants.
  • Whether disputed facts and the accused's defence can be considered at the stage of a Section 528 application.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • Section 528 BNSS
  • quash of criminal proceedings
  • prima facie case
  • cognizance order
  • assault
  • injury
  • magistrate
  • application under Section 528

Judgment

    HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
         APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 46726 of 2025

Mohit Singh And Another
                                                   .....Applicant(s)
                              Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s)      : Amar Vikash, Nafis Ahmad,
                                Naresh Kumar Pal, Sobran
                                Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

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

1. Heard Mr. Naresh Kumar Pal, learned Counsel for applicants
and 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 to quash the charge-sheet
dated 06.02.2025, cognizance/summoning order dated 14.07.2025
as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 23128 of
2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 24 of 2025 under Sections
115(2), 352 and 351(3) BNS at Police Station Bharthana, District
Etawa, pending before the Court of learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Etawah.

3. Learned Counsel for the applicants submits that opposite party
no.2 borrowed some money from the husband of opposite party
no.2 but he was not repaying the said amount. For making
pressure upon the applicants, opposite party No.2 lodged a First
Information Report as Case Crime No. 24 of 2025 under Sections
115(2), 352 and 351(3) BNS at Police Station Bharthana, District
Etawa against the applicants alleging therein that on 30.01.2025
at about 5:00 p.m., the applicants assaulted him with stick and
bricks due to which he sustained injuries. He further submits that
opposite party no.2 was medically examined but the injuries are
simple in nature. The police station is at a distance of 10 kms. but
                                                   NA528 No. 46726 of 2025
                           2


the F.I.R. was lodged after 6 hours, which shows the prosecution
case doubtful. After investigation, a charge-sheet under Sections
115(2), 352 and 351(3) BNS filed against the applicants. The
learned Magistrate has taken cognizance on 14.07.2025, whereas
no prima facie case is made out against them. Therefore, the
cognizance order as well as entire proceedings may be quashed.

4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has submitted that the learned
Magistrate has taken cognizance after perusal of the allegations
made in the F.I.R. and the material collected during the course of
investigation. A prima facie offence is clearly made out against
the applicants and, as such, entire proceedings cannot be quashed.

5. As per record, a First Information Report as Case Crime No.
24 of 2025 under Sections 115(2), 352 and 351(3) BNS at Police
Station Bharthana, District Etawa against the applicants alleging
therein that on 30.01.2025 at about 5:00 p.m., the applicants
assaulted him with stick and bricks due to which he sustained
injuries. The opposite party no.2 was medically examined at
Community Heath Centre,Bharthana, District Etawa in which two
injuries of simple nature were found. During investigation,
statement of the opposite party no.2 and witnesses were recorded.
After investigation, a charge-sheet under Sections 115(2), 352
and 351(3) BNS was filed against the applicants. The learned
Magistrate has taken cognizance on 14.07.2025.

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
                                                                                          NA528 No. 46726 of 2025
                                                                  3


                                        and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. The disputed
                                        defence of the accused 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.

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

                                        April 16, 2026
                                        Vijay

                                                                                   (Chawan Prakash,J.)




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

Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.