Allahabad High Court
ARVIND KUMAR DWIVEDI AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- SAMIT GOPAL
Holding
The application for quashing is dismissed as the criteria for invoking Section 482 CrPC are not met.
Summary
The applicants Arvind Kumar Dwivedi, Anjali Kumari and Anand Kumar filed an application under Section 528 BNSS and Section 482 CrPC seeking to quash the charge‑sheet and summons issued in a case under the U.P. Gangster and Anti‑Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. They argued that the investigation found no economic gain and that the proceedings amounted to an abuse of process. The State contended that the applicants operated as a gang, defrauded investors, and that the charge‑sheet was properly approved. The High Court examined the principles governing quashing, citing Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh, which lay down a stringent, four‑step test. Applying these standards, the Court found that the applicants had not satisfied the test and that the matter required a full trial, not a dismissal. Consequently, the application for quashing was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the application for quashing the charge‑sheet and summons under Section 528 BNSS/Section 482 CrPC is maintainable.
- Whether the facts alleged in the FIR disclose a cognizable offence warranting continuation of the proceedings.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- quashing of criminal proceedings
- Section 482 CrPC
- U.P. Gangster Act
- abuse of process
- high court jurisdiction
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 51690 of 2025
Arvind Kumar Dwivedi And 2 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Bhupendra Pal
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Ram Chandra Solanki
Court No. - 75
HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.
1. List revised.
2. Heard Sri Bhupendra Pal, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Ram
Chandra Solanki, learned counsel for the victim in the predicate offence and
Sri Bade Lal Bind, learned counsel for the State and perused the material
brought on record.
3. This application under Section 528 BNSS / under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has
been filed by the applicants- Arvind Kumar Dwivedi, Anjali Kumari and Anand
Kumar, with the prayer to allow this application and quash the entire
proceeding as well as impugned charge-sheet dated 05.08.2025 &
cognizance/summoning order dated 23.09.2025 in S.S.T. No. 1803 of 2025
(State Vs. Arvind Kumar Dwivedi and others) arising out of Case Crime No.
267 of 2024, under Section 2/3 of U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Kotwali, District Etawah pending in the
Court of Additional Sessions Judge / Special Judge (Gangster Act), Court
No.10, Etawah, with a further prayer that proceeding of the aforesaid case be
stayed during the pendency of the present application.
4. The facts in the present case are that a first information report of the
present matter was lodged on 13.11.2024, under Section 3(1) of U.P.
Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 against the
applicants alleging therein that they work as a gang and are involved in other
criminal cases.
5. A gang chart was prepared by the sponsoring agency mentioning therein
that the applicants Arvind Kumar Dwivedi and Anjali Kumari are involved in
three cases in which they are on bail whereas the applicant Anand Kumar is
involved in two cases who is in jail, the same was approved by the concerned
NA528 No. 51690 of 2025
2
officers and then finally approved by the District Magistrate, Etawah vide order
dated 07.11.2024.
6. The matter was investigated and a charge-sheet dated 05.08.2025 was
submitted against the applicants and vide order dated 23.09.2025 passed by
the Additional Sessions Judge / Special Judge (Gangster Act), Court No.10,
Etawah have been summoned for offence under Section 2/3 of U.P. Gangster
and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986.
7. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that although in the gang chart
the applicant Anand Kumar has been shown to be in jail but he has been
subsequently granted bail in the said two cases mentioned against him. It is
further submitted that the investigation in the matter has concluded but the
investigating agency could not find any evidence of any economic gain to the
accused-applicants due to their act as gangster. It is submitted that even
during investigation it could not be seen that there was any economic gain to
the accused-applicants. It is submitted that thus the proceedings are abuse of
process of Court and deserves to be quashed.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the victim and learned counsel for the State
opposed the prayer for quashing and the arguments of learned counsel for the
applicants and submitted that the applicants work as a gang and have
defrauded many people by making a company and calling for investment in it.
It is submitted that money was taken by the applicants from various persons
which has not been returned. It is submitted that during investigation it has
transpired that false documents, cheating and also forgery was committed by
the applicants in order to gain material and financial gains. It is submitted that
the charge-sheet has been duly approved by the concerned officials after its
perusal and also perusal of the records and after their being satisfied the
same has been finally approved by the District Magistrate concerned. It is
submitted that the order summoning the applicants is not suffering from any
irregularity or illegality.
9. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, it
is evident that the applicants are named in the first information report and
charge-sheet has been submitted against them after investigation subsequent
to which vide order dated 23.09.2025 they have been summoned. The first
information report and the material collected during investigation goes to show
that there are allegations against the applicants. The law with regard to
quashing is trite.The scope and ambiguity of powers to be exercised under
section 482 Cr.P.C. has been elaborately dealt with and considered by the
Apex Court in the case of Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of
Maharashtra : (2021) 19 SCC 401 and it has been observed and held as
under:
NA528 No. 51690 of 2025
3
"13. From the aforesaid decisions of this Court, right from the decision of the
Privy Council in Khwaja Nazir Ahmad [King Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad,
1944 SCC OnLine PC 29 : (1943-44) 71 IA 203 : AIR 1945 PC 18], the
following principles of law emerge:
13.1. Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the
Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate
into cognizable offences.
13.2. Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences.
13.3. However, in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is
disclosed in the first information report the Court will not permit an investigation to
go on.
13.4. The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, in
the ?rarest of rare cases?. (The rarest of rare cases standard in its application for
quashing under Section 482 CrPC is not to be confused with the norm which has
been formulated in the context of the death penalty, as explained previously by
this Court.)
13.5. While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court
cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of
the allegations made in the FIR/complaint.
13.6. Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage.
13.7. Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception and a rarity than an
ordinary rule.
13.8. Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police,
since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities. The
inherent power of the court is, however, recognised to secure the ends of justice or
prevent the above of the process by Section 482 CrPC.
13.9. The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not
overlapping.
13.10. Save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in
miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the
stage of investigation of offences.
13.11. Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary
jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice.
13.12. The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all
NA528 No. 51690 of 2025
4
facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation
by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the
allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It
would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the
complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of
process of law. During or after investigation, if the investigating officer finds that
there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating
officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate
which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known
procedure.
13.13. The power under Section 482 CrPC is very wide, but conferment of wide
power requires the Court to be cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent
duty on the Court.
13.14. However, at the same time, the Court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the
parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, more particularly
the parameters laid down by this Court in R.P. Kapur [R.P. Kapur v. State of
Punjab, 1960 SCC OnLine SC 21 : AIR 1960 SC 866] and Bhajan Lal [State of
Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426], has the
jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint.
13.15. When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused, the
Court when it exercises the power under Section 482CrPC, only has to consider
whether or not the allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable
offence and is not required to consider on merits whether the allegations make out
a cognizable offence or not and the court has to permit the investigating
agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR."
10. The Apex Court in the case of Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani Versus State
of Uttar Pradesh and Another : 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1947 has laid a four-
step test for High Courts to follow while considering petitions for quashing
criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It
has been held as under:
"20. The following steps should ordinarily determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing, raised
by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.:-
(i) Step one, whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound,
reasonable, and indubitable, i.e., the materials is of sterling and impeccable
quality?
(ii) Step two, whether the material relied upon by the accused, would rule out the
assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused, i.e., the material
is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint,
NA528 No. 51690 of 2025
5
i.e., the material is such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and
condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false.
(iii) Step three, whether the material relied upon by the accused, has not been
refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such, that it cannot
be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant?
(iv) Step four, whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of
process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice?
If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, judicial conscience of the High
Court should persuade it to quash such criminal - proceedings, in exercise of
power vested in it under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Such exercise of power,
besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would
otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as, proceedings arising
therefrom) specially when, it is clear that the same would not conclude in the
conviction of the accused. [(See:Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor (Criminal
Appeal No. 174 of 2013)]"
11. Law for quashing is strict and trite. The present case does not fall within
the category of cases as enumerated in the judgements of Apex Court in the
case of Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. (Supra) and also on the four-steps
test in the case of Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani (Supra). No ground for
interference is made out. It is trite law that at the stage of quashing only the
material of the prosecution has to be seen and the court cannot delve into the
defence of the accused and then proceed to examine the matter on its merit
by weighing the evidence so produced. The disputed questions of facts of the
case cannot be adjudged and adjudicated at this stage while exercising
powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and only the prima facie prosecution case
has to be looked into as it is. Evidence needs to be led to substantiate the
defence of the accused. Further it is also well settled that that while exercising
powers under section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court is not required to conduct a
mini trial.
12. In view of the same, looking to the facts and circumstances, the present
application U/s 528 BNSS is dismissed.
13. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
April 8, 2026
AS Rathore
(Samit Gopal,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…