Allahabad High Court

NASIR RANA AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 19 April 2026
Bench: VIKRAM D CHAUHAN

Holding

The petition lacks merit and is dismissed, as the question of offence is a factual issue for trial.

Summary

The applicants, Nasir Rana and another, filed an application under Section 528 of the B.N.S. seeking to quash Criminal Case No.17940/9 of 2025 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffar Nagar. They contended that they were not named in the FIR dated 5‑12‑2024 and that their alleged involvement was based solely on the later recorded statement of Deputy Director Shreya Gupta, which they argued was hearsay and unsupported by medical evidence. The State opposed, relying on Gupta’s statement and corroborative statements of other intelligence officers, alleging that the applicants participated in assaulting the GST raid team, a serious offence against public servants. The Court held that the veracity of the prosecution evidence and whether an offence is made out are factual matters to be decided at trial, and that the petition does not warrant interference at this stage. Consequently, the application was dismissed as lacking merit.

Issues considered

Whether an application under Section 528 of the B.N.S. to quash criminal proceedings can be entertained when the accused were not named in the FIR but later mentioned in a police officer's statement.
Whether the statement of a police officer, without corroborative medical evidence, constitutes sufficient ground to quash the case.
Whether the court can assess the sufficiency of prosecution evidence at the pre‑trial stage.

Legislation cited

B.N.S. — s. 109(1), 115[2], 121[1], 125, 131, 132, 180, 183, 191[2], 324[4], 324[5], 351[2], 352, 528, 61[2](a), 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act

Subjects

quash of criminal proceedings
section 528
FIR
hearsay evidence
assault on public servant
burden of proof
trial stage
Criminal Law Amendment Act
B.N.S.
GST raid

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 51893 of 2025

Nasir Rana And Another
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

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

Court No. - 73
HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Manish Goyal, learned
Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned
A.G.A. for the State.

2. This application has been filed by the applicants with the following
prayers:-

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may
graciously be pleased to quash the proceeding of Criminal Case No.
17940/9 of 2025 [State Vs. Shah Mohammad Rana & others], Case Crime
No. 357 of 2024, U/s 191[2], 121[1], 132, 115[2], 352, 351[2], 131, 125,
324[4], 324[5], 109(1), 61[2](a) of B.N.S. & Section 7 of Criminal Law
Amendment Act, P.S. Civil Lines, District Muzaffar Nagar, pending
before the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffar Nagar for
charge sheet dated 17.3.2025 as well as its order of
cognizance/summoning dated 11.7.2025.

It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to
stay the further proceeding of Criminal Case No. 17940/9 of 2025 [State
Vs. Shah Mohammad Rana & others], Case Crime No. 357 of 2024, U/s
191[2], 121[1], 132, 115[2], 352, 351[2], 131, 125, 324[4], 324[5],
109(1), 61[2](a) of B.N.S. & Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act,
P.S. Civil Lines, District Muzaffar Nagar, pending before the court of
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffar Nagar for charge sheet dated
17.3.2025 as well as its order of cognizance/summoning dated 11.7.2025,
NA528 No. 51893 of 2025
2

during the pendency of the present application. And/or to pass any
suitable order or direction to which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and
proper in the interest of justice."

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants were not
named in the First Information Report and First Information Report was
lodged on 5.12.2024. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits
that when GST raid team approached the premises in question for raid,
the incident alleged to have taken place where the accused named in the
First Information Report along with others alleged to have disturb the raid
proceedings and have assaulted the raid team. Learned counsel for the
applicants further submits that applicants were not named in the First
Information Report and applicant no. 1 is a Journalist. The name of
applicants has surfaced in the statement of Smt. Shreya Gupta who was
the Deputy Director, DGGI Dehradun and was leading the raid team. Her
statement has been recorded where she has stated that applicants along
with other accused persons were assaulting and pushing the officers of the
raid team. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that there
was no such allegation in the First Information Report. However,
subsequently when the statement of the aforesaid officer was recorded the
officer has stated the name of the applicants. The First Information Report
was lodged by one Kaushal Kumar, Intelligence Officer, DGGI, Meerut
Zone. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that statement of
Smt. Shreya Gupta is a hearsay evidence. It is further submitted by
learned counsel for the applicants that the informant was also present
along with Ms. Shreya Gupta, therefore, the improvement in the statement
of Ms. Shreya Gupta is not tenable under law. There is no medial report in
respect of injuries suffered by any of the staff including Smt. Shreya
Gupta.

4. Sri Manish Goyal, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri
Arvind Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the
application and submits that GST raid led by Smt. Shreya Gupta has
approached the premises in question where the raid was held and assault
was made by named persons and 300 other accused persons. Law was
taken in the hands by the accused persons and raid team was not
permitted to complete their work and as a result of the same raid team
NA528 No. 51893 of 2025
3

members were assaulted. There is a statement of Smt. Shreya Gupta,
Deputy Director, DGGI Dehradun, under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS
assaulting the raid team. It is further submitted that even in the statement
of Sri Mayank Sharma, who was the Intelligence Officer, DGGI Meerut
Zonal Unit as well as in the statement of Sri Vikas Gupta, Intelligence
Officer, DGGJ, Meerut, who have also supported the allegation of Smt.
Shreya Gupta.

5. It is to be seen that it is not in dispute from the statement of Smt.
Shreya Gupta that applicants were also involved in assaulting the raid
team. At this stage, the Court has only to consider whether any offence is
made out against the applicants even assuming there is no injuries then
also offence of assault/criminal force may be attracted to any person or
any accused who has assaulted the other person who is a public servant. It
is a settled law that the veracity of prosecution evidence is to be tested at
the stage of trial and further the question as to which offence is attracted
can always be at the time of framing of charge, however, from
prosecution case it cannot be said that no offence is made out. The
allegation that public servant were assaulted and their duties were
interfered is a serious matter.

6. In view of the aforesaid, whether the incident has taken place in the
manner in which the prosecution has stated, is a question of fact which is
required to be considered at the time of trial. The petition lacks merit and
is dismissed accordingly.

(Vikram D. Chauhan,J.)
April 20, 2026
VMA

Digitally signed by :-
VISHWA MOHAN ARORA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…