Allahabad High Court

RANJEET SINGH AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 19 April 2026
Bench: CHAWAN PRAKASH

Holding

The application for quash under Section 528 CrPC was dismissed as a prima facie case against the applicants was found to exist.

Summary

The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the CrPC seeking to quash the cognizance order dated 19‑12‑2024 and the entire criminal proceedings arising from FIR No. 159 of 2024, which alleged offences under Sections 147, 120B, 506, 420, 419 and 386 IPC. The applicants argued that they had purchased the land in question, were not present at the alleged incident as per CCTV footage, and that there was a four‑hour delay in filing the FIR, thus no prima facie case existed. The State contended that the FIR, statements of the informant and witnesses, and the investigation material established a prima facie case against the applicants. The High Court examined the material and, relying on Supreme Court precedents, held that the question of defence and factual dispute 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 was made out, the Court refused to quash the proceedings and dismissed the application.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court can quash the cognizance order and the criminal proceedings under Section 528 CrPC when a prima facie case is established.
Whether the material on record discloses a prima facie case against the applicants.
Whether factual disputes and the defence of the accused can be considered at the stage of a Section 528 application.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528
Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 147, 386, 419, 420, 506

Subjects

Section 528 CrPC
quash of criminal proceedings
prima facie case
cognizance order
IPC offences
application dismissed

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 48932 of 2025

Ranjeet Singh And 3 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ravindra Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

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

1. Heard Mr. Vijay Bahadur, learned Counsel holding brief of Mr. Ravindra
Kumar, learned Counsel for applicants, 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 prayer to quash the cognizance order dated 19.12.2024 passed by
learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hathras, in Case No. 1033 of
2024, arising out of Case Crime No. 159 of 2024, under Sections 147, 120B,
506, 420, 419 and 386 I.P.C. P.S. Mursan, District Hathras as well as the
entire proceedings of the aforesaid case.

3. Learned Counsel for the applicants submits that applicant nos. 3 and 4
purchased a land through a registered sale-deed dated 21.06.2024 from the
co-accused Pradaman Prasad Singh. The present F.I.R. got registered due to
previous enmity. The applicants have no concerned with the alleged offence.
As per the CCTV footage, the applicants were not seen at the place of
offence which shows that they have no role in the present case. There is a
delay of 4 hours in Registration of F.I.R. After registration of F.I.R,
statements of information and witnesses were recorded. The investigating
Officer, after investigation, filed a charge-sheet against the applicants and
the learned Magistrate, on 19.12.2024 has taken cognizance on it, 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.
NA528 No. 48932 of 2025
2

4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has submitted that from the perusal of the
allegations made in the F.I.R., the statements of the informant and witnesses
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 an F.I.R. as Case Crime No. 159
of 2024, under Sections 147, 120B, 506, 420, 419 and 386 I.P.C. at Police
Station Mursan, District Hathras against the applicants. After completion of
investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the applicants under Sections
147, 120B 506, 420, 419 and 386 I.P.C. and the learned Magistrate, on
19.12.2024 has taken cognizance on it.

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
applicant. 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 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 is dismissed.

(Chawan Prakash,J.)
April 20, 2026
Vijay

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…