Allahabad High Court

SYED MOHD. NASIR AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 22 April 2026
Bench: CHAWAN PRAKASH

Holding

The magistrate acted within the law and the application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. to quash the charge sheet and summoning order was dismissed.

Summary

The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. seeking to quash the charge sheet and summoning order issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate in a case arising from alleged trespass and theft. They contended that the investigation was improper, the charge sheet was filed without basis, and no offence was made out against them. The State argued that the magistrate correctly exercised jurisdiction to take cognizance where a prima facie case existed, and that the charge sheet reflected material evidence of offences under Sections 504 and 506 IPC. The High Court examined the material and held that the magistrate’s order was in accordance with law and that the disputed factual issues could not be decided in a Section 528 proceeding. Consequently, the court refused to set aside the charge sheet and summoning order and dismissed the application.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court can quash a charge sheet and summoning order under Section 528 B.N.S.S. when a prima facie case exists.
Whether the learned magistrate erred in taking cognizance of the offences alleged in the FIR.

Legislation cited

B.N.S.S. — s. 528
Cr.P.C. — s. 156(3)
Indian Penal Code — s. 147, 380, 457, 504, 506

Subjects

quash
charge sheet
Section 528
prima facie case
cognizance
Criminal Procedure Code
Indian Penal Code
investigation
summoning order

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 46837 of 2025

Syed Mohd. Nasir And Another
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sudhir Kumar Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Devendra Kumar, G.A.

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

1. Heard Sri Sudhir Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicants,
Sri Devendra Kumar, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 and Sri
Anil Kumar Ojha, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The present application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been filed for
quashing the charge sheet No.293 of 2010 dated 13.11.2010 along with
summoning order dated 20.1.2011 passed by the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Mau as well as entire proceeding of Case No.45 of 2011
(State Vs. Saiyyad Mohd. Aslam & Others) arising out of Case Crime
No.1579 of 2010, under Sections 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Ghosi,
District Mau.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that opposite party No. 2
filed an application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. on the basis of false
and baseless allegations stating therein applicants, Saiyed Mohd. Aslam,
Anwar and Mukhtar allegedly trespassed into his house, they break the
lock and took away the original Nikahnama register, other documents,
cash of Rs. 3,500/-, and certain gold and silver ornaments. It is further
alleged that on 05.05.2010 and 20.05.2010, Saiyed Mohd. Aslam again
abused and threatened opposite party No. 2 with dire consequences. The
said application was allowed, and consequently, an FIR being Case Crime
No.1579 of 2010 was registered under Sections 147, 457, 380, 504 and
506 IPC against the applicants and other persons. During the course of
investigation, statements of opposite party No. 2 and other witnesses were
NA528 No. 46837 of 2025
2

recorded, and upon completion of investigation, a charge sheet under
Sections 504 and 506 IPC was submitted against the applicants and two
other persons. However, in his statement, opposite party No. 2
categorically stated that the alleged threats were given by Saiyed Mohd.
Aslam, and no role in extending any threat has been attributed to the
present applicants. It is further submitted that the Investigating Officer did
not conduct a proper and fair investigation and wrongly submitted a
charge sheet against the present applicants. Thereafter, the learned
Magistrate summoned the applicants vide order dated 20.1.2011. It is
further submitted that no offence is made out against the applicants and
that the learned Magistrate has passed the impugned order without proper
application of mind. Therefore, the impugned order and charge sheet are
liable to be quashed.

4. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for opposite party
No.2 have vehemently opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of
the applicants and contended that the learned Magistrate has passed the
impugned summoning order strictly in accordance with law. It is
submitted that, at the stage of taking cognizance, the Court is only
required to examine whether a prima facie case is made out or not. He
further submits that the charge sheet has been filed after due investigation
and the material collected therein clearly discloses the commission of
offences against the applicants. There is no illegality, irregularity, or
perversity in the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate.
Therefore, the present application is liable to be dismissed.

5. As per the facts of this case, it transpires that opposite party no. 2 filed
an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., stating therein that the Nikah
of Saiyed Mohd. Aslam with Firdaus was solemnized on 26.11.2008 with
Haq Mehar of Rs. 51,000/-. It is further submitted that after some time,
disputes arose between the husband and wife, and Firdus (wife) lodged an
FIR against Saiyed Mohd. Aslam (husband), registered as Case Crime
No.127 of 2009, under Sections 307, 323, 342, 506, 419, 420, 467, 468,
471, 472 and 473 I.P.C. It is alleged that Saiyed Mohd. Aslam wants to
show Firdaus as a tenant instead of wife. Due to the said dispute the
accused Saiyed Mohd. Aslam along with four other persons came to the
house of opposite party No.2 and demanded the original Nikahnama
NA528 No. 46837 of 2025
3

register, however, upon refusal, the extended threats of dire
consequences. Thereafter on 11.3.2010 the applicants, Saiyed Mohd.
Aslam and two other accused persons break the lock of house of opposite
party No.2 and took away the original Nikahnama register, other papers,
cash of Rs,3.500/- and certain gold and silver ornaments. The opposite
party No.2 on 28.5.2010 filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
regarding the said incident, which was allowed, and consequently, an FIR
being Case Crime No.1579 of 2010 was registered under Sections 147,
457, 380, 504 and 506 IPC against the applicants and other persons.
During investigation, statements of opposite party No. 2 and other
witnesses were recorded, and upon completion of investigation, a charge
sheet under Sections 504 and 506 IPC was submitted against the
applicants and two other persons. The learned Magistrate, upon perusal of
the charge sheet and the material brought on record summoned the
applicants under vide order dated 20.1.2011.

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 B.N.S.S.

7. Upon consideration of the material available on record, this Court finds
that the learned Magistrate has proceeded in accordance with law. This
Court does not find any illegality or perversity in passing the
cognizance/summoning order. Therefore, the prayer for setting aside the
same is hereby refused.

8. Accordingly, the application is dismissed.

(Chawan Prakash,J.)
April 23, 2026
Md Faisal

Digitally signed by :-
MOHD FAISAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…