Allahabad High Court

SMT. BALAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 7 OTHERS

Decided: 22 April 2026
Bench: ACHAL SACHDEV

Holding

The High Court held that there was no abuse of process or apparent error in the trial and revisional courts’ orders, and therefore the application under Section 528 BNSS must be dismissed.

Summary

The applicant, Smt. Bala, filed a criminal complaint (No.641 of 2024) alleging offences under IPC sections 427 and 323 and the trial court summoned two accused based on prima facie evidence. Dissatisfied with the trial court’s order dated 22‑08‑2024, the applicant sought revision before the Additional Sessions Judge, which was rejected on 23‑04‑2025, the court holding that only a prima facie case is required at the stage of issuing process. The applicant then moved the Allahabad High Court under Section 528 of the Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act (BNSS) to quash both the trial court’s and revisional court’s orders. The State opposed, arguing that the lower courts correctly applied procedural law and that no abuse of process was shown. The High Court examined the record, noted that the trial court’s findings were based on oral evidence and statutory provisions, and found no error or abuse of process. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the application under Section 528 BNSS.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court can quash the trial court’s order summoning accused under IPC sections 427 and 323 on the ground of abuse of process.
Whether the revisional court’s order upholding the trial court’s decision is liable to be interfered with under Section 528 BNSS.

Legislation cited

Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act — s. 528
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 156(3), 200, 202, 204, 319, 358
Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 427

Subjects

Section 528 BNSS
quash order
revision
criminal procedure
summoning accused
preliminary investigation
abuse of process

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 51823 of 2025

Smt. Bala
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 7 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mohd. Kamar Shah Alam
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 81
HON'BLE ACHAL SACHDEV, J.

1. Learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State are
present.

2. None appears on behalf of the opposite party nos.3 to 8, even in the
revised call.

3. As per office report dated 15.04.2026, notices issued to the opposite party
nos.3 to 8, in compliance of the order dated 14.01.2026, has been served
personally upon them, therefore, service is sufficient on opposite party no.3
to 8.

4. This application u/s 528 BNSS has been preferred by the applicant with
prayer to quash the order dated 23.04.2025 passed by the learned Additional
Session Judge, Court No.5, Saharanpur, in Criminal Revision No.422 of
2024 (Smt. Bala Vs. State of U.P. and another) and order the dated
22.08.2024, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Third, Saharanpur, in
Complaint No.641 of 2024 (Smt. Bala Vs. Molhad and Others), under
sections 427 and 323 of IPC, Police Station Gagalhedi, District Saharanpur.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant in the
present application is the complainant in Complaint No.641 of 2024 (Smt.
Bala Vs. Molhad and Others), under sections 427 and 323 of IPC, Police
Station Gagalhedi, District Saharanpur. The present application has been
NA528 No. 51823 of 2025
2

moved before this Court by the applicant/complainant being aggrieved by
order dated 23.04.2025 passed in Criminal Revision No.422 of 2024 (Smt.
Bala Vs. State of U.P. and another), by the learned Additional Session
Judge, Court No.5, Saharanpur, by which the revision filed by the
applicant/complainant against the order dated 22.08.2024 was rejected,
hence present application is maintainable.

6. On the other hand, learned AGA for the State has opposed the prayer and
submitted that the revisional court vide its order dated 23.04.2025 rightly
uphold the order of the lower court dated 22.08.2024 with respect to the
settled position of law regarding the summoning of the accused in a
complaint case, stating therein that there is no need to do an analysis of the
the truth or facts, only a prima facie case is required at the stage of issuing of
process under Section 204 C.r.P.C. The conclusion given by the trial court in
the order dated 22.08.2024 is completely factual in nature which is
supported by the affidavit and oral evidence available at the stage of
preliminary investigation which does not warrant any interference
whatsoever, hence the application is liable to be dismissed.

7. Heard Mohd. Kamar Shah Alam, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri
Jhamman Ram, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

8. Perusal of record shows that, an application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
was filed by the applicant/complainant before the court of learned Judicial
Magistrate, Third, Saharanpur on 11.03.2024, which was subsequently
registered as Complaint Case No.641 of 2024. Thereafter, as per the
direction of the trial court, statements of the applicant/complainant as well as
the witnesses were recorded under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C.,
respectively and on the basis of the said statements, learned trial court has
summoned the accused Santosh wife of Boby, under section 427 IPC and
also summoned the accused Ankit under sections 427 and 323 IPC, vide
order dated 22.08.2024, on the ground that there is prosecutable evidence
available against the said accused persons, and the complaint of the
NA528 No. 51823 of 2025
3

applicant/complainant was rejected against rest of the accused persons.

9. Perusal of record also shows that being aggrieved with the order dated
22.08.2024 passed by the learned trial court, the applicant/complainant has
preferred the revision before the revisional court i.e. learned Additional
Session Judge, Court No.5, Saharanpur, which was registered as Criminal
Revision No.422 of 2024 (Smt. Bala Vs. State of U.P. and another) and the
same was rejected by the learned revisional court vide its order dated
23.04.2025, with the observation that the decision of the learned trial court is
founded on the facts and initial inquiry that is supported by the oral
evidence, and there is no ground for interference at the stage of revision with
the order of trial court and the revisionist can raise the matter again at
appropriate stage (i.e. under sections 319 Cr.P.C / 358 BNSS).

10. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the view that the findings
of the revisional court are based on the relevant procedural aspects and the
decision of the trial court is founded on the thorough examination of the
complaint, witnesses and the evidences submitted before the trial court by
the applicant/complainant and no where the order of the learned court
discloses any abuse of the process of the court. Both the orders are followed
by the procedural aspects as incorporated in the Cr.P.C./BNSS and there is
no evidence, which shows that the trial court as well as revisional court have
committed any apparent error or abuse of the process of the court. Therefore,
the interference of this Court in the present case is unwarranted and present
application is liable to be dismissed.

11. Accordingly, the present application u/s 528 BNSS is hereby dismissed.

April 23, 2026
VKG
(Achal Sachdev,J.)

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…