Allahabad High Court
BALIRAMversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- CHAWAN PRAKASH
Holding
The learned Magistrate acted in accordance with law and the application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. is dismissed.
Summary
The applicant, Baliram, filed an application under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. seeking to quash the charge sheet and cognizance order in a theft case (Sections 457, 380, 411 IPC) filed against him. He alleged that the investigation was flawed, there were no eyewitnesses, and the magistrate had taken cognizance mechanically without applying judicial mind. The State opposed, contending that the magistrate correctly examined the prima facie case and that the charge sheet was based on a proper investigation. The High Court examined the record and found no illegality, irregularity, or perversity in the magistrate’s order. Consequently, the Court refused to set aside the order and dismissed the application.
Issues considered
- Whether the learned Magistrate erred in taking cognizance of the offence without applying a judicial mind.
- Whether the charge sheet filed under Sections 457, 380 and 411 IPC was the result of a proper investigation.
- Whether an application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. for quashing the charge sheet and cognizance order is maintainable in the present facts.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 528
- Indian Penal Code — s. 380, 411, 457
Subjects
- Section 528 application
- quashing charge sheet
- cognizance order
- criminal procedure
- magistrate jurisdiction
- investigation adequacy
- IPC theft offences
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 50625 of 2025
Baliram
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Krishna Mani
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 79
HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J.
1. Heard Sri Krishna Mani, learned counsel for the applicant and 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.20 of 2020 dated 2.3.2020 and cognizance
order dated 19.3.2020 passed by Civil Judge J.D./J.M., Sonbhadra as well
as entire criminal proceeding of Case No.2543 of 2020 (State Vs.
Baliram) arising out of Case Crime No.132 of 2019 under Sections 457,
380, 411 I.P.C., Police Station Ghorwal, District Sonbhadra, pending in
the Court of C.J.M., Sonbhadra.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the opposite party no. 2
lodged a First Information Report, registered as Case Crime No.132 of
2019, under Sections 457, 380, and 411 IPC, on 04.10.2019 against an
unknown person, alleging that silver and gold ornaments were stolen from
his house and that the accused also took away the CCTV and DVR. It is
further submitted that during the course of investigation, the applicant
was arrested on 08.01.2020. The applicant has been falsely implicated in
the present case, and there is neither any eye-witness nor any independent
witness to support the alleged recovery shown in the recovery memo.
Learned counsel further contends that the Investigating Officer failed to
conduct a fair and proper investigation and wrongly submitted the police
report. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence
vide order dated 19.03.2020 without due application of judicial mind. It is
thus submitted that no offence is made out against the applicant, and the
impugned order has been passed in a mechanical manner. Accordingly,
NA528 No. 50625 of 2025
2
the impugned order is liable to be set aside by this Hon’ble Court.
4. Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the submissions
advanced on behalf of the applicant and contended that the learned
Magistrate has passed the impugned cognizance 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 cognizable offences against the applicants.
There is no illegality, irregularity, or perversity in the impugned order
passed by the learned Magistrate. Accordingly, the present application is
liable to be dismissed.
5. From the record, it transpires that opposite party no. 2 lodged a First
Information Report, registered as Case Crime No. 132 of 2019, under
Sections 457, 380, and 411 IPC against an unknown person, alleging theft
of gold and silver ornaments along with the CCTV and DVR from his
house. During the course of investigation, the applicant was arrested on
08.01.2020, and certain articles were recovered from his possession. After
due investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted a charge-sheet
against the applicant. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate took cognizance
vide order dated 19.3.2020.
6. 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 impugned
order. Therefore, the prayer for setting aside the same is hereby refused.
7. Accordingly, the application is dismissed.
(Chawan Prakash,J.)
April 20, 2026
Md Faisal
Digitally signed by :-
MOHD FAISAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…