Allahabad High Court
ASHEESH KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- MADAN PAL SINGH
Holding
The Court held that a prima facie cognizable offence is made out and the application for quashing under Section 528 B.N.S.S. must be dismissed.
Summary
The applicant, Asheesh Kumar, filed an application under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. seeking to quash the charge-sheet, cognizance order and the entire criminal proceedings arising from FIR No. 29‑03‑2025, which alleged that he, along with co‑accused, verbally abused and assaulted the complainant's husband. The State opposed, contending that the FIR disclosed a cognizable offence. The Court examined whether the FIR was frivolous or malafide and whether the High Court could exercise its inherent power to quash the case at the preliminary stage. Relying on the principle that only a prima facie case is required at this stage and on a series of Supreme Court precedents, the Court found that the allegations, taken at face value, constitute a cognizable offence. Consequently, there was no ground to interfere with the prosecution. The application for quashing was therefore dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR/complaint is frivolous, malafide or vexatious warranting quash under Section 528 B.N.S.S.
- Whether the High Court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings at the preliminary stage.
- Whether a prima facie case of cognizable offence exists based on the allegations in the FIR.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- quash of criminal proceedings
- Section 528 B.N.S.S.
- inherent jurisdiction
- prima facie case
- assault
- false FIR
- High Court
- Criminal Procedure Code
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 48825 of 2025
Asheesh Kumar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Arvind Kumar Yadav, Parmeshwar Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 81
HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.
1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant, and the learned A.G.A. for the
State.
2. The present application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been filed by the
applicant for quashing of the impugned charge-sheet dated 10th May, 2025,
cognizance/summoning order dated 8th August, 2025 as well as the entire
proceedings of Criminal Case No. 102 of 2025 (State of U.P. Vs. Asheesh
Kumar & Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 11 of 2025, under Sections
115 (2), 352, 117 (2) B.N.S., Police Station-Pachhongaon, District-Etawah,
pending int he Court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial
Magistrate, Court No.4, Etawah.
3. Brief facts of the case is that the First Information Report dated 29th March,
2025 has been lodged by O.P, no.2/complainant against the three named
accused persons including the applicant by alleging therein that on 12.03.2025
at about 7:30 PM, while the husband of the informant was sitting inside their
house with the family, the co-accused Ashish (applicant herein), who is
nephew-in-law of the informant, called her husband outside the house under
the pretext of discussing some matter. Upon her husband stepping out, the
applicant started hurling verbal abuses at him. When her husband objected to
the abusive language, applicant along with co-accused Grish and Sanjay
assaulted her husband, causing injuries to his hand. The informant
accordingly made the application requesting legal action against the accused
persons.
4. After lodging of the aforesaid first information report, the investigation
proceeded and upon completion of the same, the Investigating Officer has
submitted the charge-sheet against the applicant on which the cognizance has
been taken and the applicant has been summoned, hence the present
NA528 No. 48825 of 2025
2
application has been filed.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the First Information
Report has been lodged on the basis of false and frivolous allegations, which
is nothing but an abuse of process of law only with a view to harass the
applicant.
6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has contented that from the allegations made in
the First Information Report cognizable offence is made out against the
applicants. The defence of the applicant cannot be taken into consideration, at
this stage. Therefore, the applicant does not deserve any indulgence.
7. 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
applicant. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions
of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482
Cr.P.C./528 B.N.S.S. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen where
the allegation made in the FIR/complaint, even of they are taken at their
entirety, prima facie constitutes cognizable offence against the accused.
8. Position of law for invoking the jurisdiction of inherent power of High Court
has been settled by the Apex Court in following judgments:-
1. R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866;
2. Kurukshetra University Vs. State of Haryana, (1977) 4 SCC 451;
3. State of West Bengal Vs. Swapan Kumar Guha, (1982) 1 SCC 561;
4. Dhanalakshmi Vs. R. Prasanna Kumar, 1990 Supp SCC 686;
5. State of Haryana & Others Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335;
6. State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 222;
7. B.S. Joshi Vs, State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675;
8. Sanapareddy Maheedhar Seshagiri & another Vs. State of Andhra
Pradesh & another, (2007) 13 SCC 165;
9. State of Telangana Vs. Habib Abdullaha Jilani & others, (2017) 2 SCC
779;
10. M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra &
others, 2021 AIR SC 1918.
9. After considering the totality of facts of the case and keeping in mind the
NA528 No. 48825 of 2025
3
position of law, there is no merit in the present application. Apart from that
there is no material to show that the complaint/FIR is malafide, frivolous and
vexatious. The version of the first information report and the statements of the
informant/complainant and injured recorded under Sections 161 Cr.P.C./180
B.N.S.S., the medical examination report of the injured and the police
documents papers support the prosecution version. The interference at the
threshold of quashing of the criminal proceedings of the present case cannot
be said to be exceptional as it discloses prima facie commission of cognizable
offence.
10.In the result, the prayer for quashing of entire proceeding, charge sheet
and cognizance order is refused.
11. With the aforesaid observations, the application is dismissed.
September 18, 2026
Sushil/-
(Madan Pal Singh,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…