Allahabad High Court

RAJA @ RAJA BALMIKIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 18 March 2026
Bench: CHAWAN PRAKASH

Holding

The court held that cognizance had been duly taken against the applicant and therefore the application to quash the proceedings under Section 528 was dismissed.

Summary

The applicant filed an application under Section 528 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash the criminal proceedings (Case No. 20372 of 2018) arising from FIR No. 278 of 2017, which alleged offences under numerous sections of the Indian Penal Code, the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act and the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. The applicant argued that the Additional Civil Judge had not specified his name while taking cognizance and that subsequent non‑bailable warrants were issued without proper naming, rendering the orders illegal. The State contended that cognizance was duly taken against all accused, including the applicant, and that the orders were valid. The High Court examined the cognizance order dated 18‑04‑2018 and found that it expressly took cognizance of the applicant along with other accused, rejecting the claim of procedural defect. Consequently, the Court held there was no ground to quash the proceedings and dismissed the application. The application was therefore dismissed as lacking merit.

Issues considered

Whether cognizance was properly taken against the applicant under the charge‑sheet for the offences alleged in FIR No. 278 of 2017.
Whether the non‑bailable warrants issued without expressly naming the applicant are valid.
Whether the proceedings can be quashed under Section 528 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the ground of lack of judicial mind.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528
Criminal Law Amendment Act — s. 7
Indian Penal Code — s. 147, 148, 149, 153A, 186, 188, 285A, 307, 323, 332, 333, 336, 353, 427, 436, 504, 506
Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act — s. 3, 4

Subjects

Section 528
quash criminal proceedings
cognizance
non‑bailable warrant
High Court
criminal procedure
Indian Penal Code

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 49070 of 2025

Raja @ Raja Balmiki
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sudhakar Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 80
HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J.

1. Heard Sri Sudhakar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and
learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The present application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed to
quash the entire proceeding of Case No.20372 of 2018 (State Vs. Raja
Balmiki and others) arising out of Case Crime No.278 of 2017 under
Sections 307, 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 332, 333, 336, 353, 153-A,
436, 427, 188, 285-A, 186 I.P.C. and Section 7 of Criminal Law
(Amendment) Act and Section 3/4 Prevention of Damage to Public
Property Act, Police Station Juhi, District Kanpur Nagar and also to quash
the impugned charge sheet dated 3.4.2018 and set aside the
cognizance/summoning order dated 18.04.2018 passed by the learned
Additional Civil Judge (SD), F.T.C., Kanpur Nagar and NBW order dated
30.4.2019 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate-IInd, Kanpur Nagar and
28.5.2025 passed by the learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Kanpur Nagar.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that an FIR, being Case
Crime No.278 of 2017, under Sections 307, 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506,
332, 333, 336, 353, 153-A, 436, 427, 188, 285-A and 186 I.P.C., along
with Section 7 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act and Sections 3/4 of
the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, was registered against
the applicant along with 54 named persons and some unknown persons.
After completion of investigation, the police submitted a charge-sheet
against the applicant along with other co-accused persons. It is further
NA528 No. 49070 of 2025
2

submitted that the learned Magistrate took cognizance on the said charge-
sheet vide order dated 18.04.2018, however, in the said cognizance order,
the names of the accused persons were not specified and, therefore, no
cognizance can be said to have been taken against the present applicant. It
is next submitted that, without properly taking cognizance against the
applicant, the learned Magistrate proceeded to issue a non-bailable
warrant vide order dated 30.04.2019, again without specifying the names
of the accused persons. Thereafter, on 28.05.2025, the learned Special
Chief Judicial Magistrate issued non-bailable warrants in the name of the
applicant along with 20 other accused persons. Learned counsel for the
applicants contends that the learned Magistrate has failed to properly
appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case and has passed the
impugned orders, including the order of cognizance/summoning as well
as issuance of non-bailable warrants, without due application of judicial
mind. Therefore, the impugned orders suffer from manifest illegality and
infirmity and is liable to be set aside.

4. Per contra, learned AGA has opposed the prayer of the applicant and
contended that FIR, being Case Crime No.278 of 2017, under Sections
307, 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 332, 333, 336, 353, 153-A, 436, 427,
188, 285-A and 186 I.P.C., along with Section 7 of the Criminal Law
(Amendment) Act and Sections 3/4 of the Prevention of Damage to
Public Property Act, was registered against the applicant along with 54
named persons and some unknown persons. After investigation, the police
submitted a charge sheet against the applicant along with other co-
accused persons. It is further submitted that the learned Additional Civil
Judge (SD), F.T.C., Kanpur Nagar, vide order dated 18.04.2018, took
cognizance against the accused persons and has not committed any
illegality in passing the impugned cognizance order. The learned
Magistrate has rightly taken cognizance on the basis of the material
collected during investigation. Hence, the present application lacks merit
and is liable to be dismissed.

5. From the facts of the present case, it transpires that an FIR, being Case
Crime No.278 of 2017, under Sections 307, 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506,
332, 333, 336, 353, 153-A, 436, 427, 188, 285-A and 186 I.P.C., along
with Section 7 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act and Sections 3/4 of
NA528 No. 49070 of 2025
3

the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, was registered against
the applicant along with 54 named persons and some unknown persons.
After investigation, the police filed charge sheet dated 03.04.2018 against
the applicant along with other co-accused persons. The learned Additional
Civil Judge (S.D.), F.T.C., Kanpur Nagar took cognizance on the said
charge sheet vide order dated 18.04.2018. A perusal of the cognizance
order dated 18.04.2018 shows that the learned Additional Civil
Judge considered the entire case diary and, upon such consideration, took
cognizance of the offences disclosed therein. From the said order, it is
clear that cognizance was taken against all the charge-sheeted accused
persons, including the present applicant. The argument advanced on
behalf of the applicant that no cognizance was taken against him is not
borne out from the record. At this stage, it also cannot be said that no
prima facie case is made out against the applicant.

6. Accordingly, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this
Court does not find any good ground to quash the aforesaid proceedings.
The prayer for quashing the same is, therefore, refused.

7. The application lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.

(Chawan Prakash,J.)
March 19, 2026
Md Faisal

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…