MASOOK ALIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                 APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 6772 of 2026

Masook Ali
                                                              .....Applicant(s)
                                   Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s)      : Abhilasha Singh, Ashutosh Yadav,
                                Shyam Lal
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Devendra Mani Tripathi, G.A., Rahul
                                Tiwari

Court No. - 81
                    HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.

   1. Heard Sri Ashutosh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri
     Devendra Mani Tripathi, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2,
     learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent and perused the record.

   2. The present application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been filed
     seeking quashing of the charge-sheet dated 20.12.2025, cognizance
     order dated 24.12.2025, summoning order dated 07.01.2026 and the
     entire proceedings of the criminal case arising out of Case Crime No.
     174 of 2024, under Section 306 I.P.C., Police Station Lohia Nagar,
     District Meerut.

   3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been
     falsely implicated and that the material collected during investigation
     does not disclose the commission of the alleged offence against the
     applicant. It is submitted that there is no direct or cogent material
     showing that the applicant had abetted the commission of suicide by
     the deceased. Learned counsel further submits that the allegations are
     primarily based upon the alleged suicide note and the statements of the
     informant, which do not establish any specific act of instigation,
     intentional aid or active participation on the part of the applicant so as
     to constitute the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. It is further
     submitted that the alleged suicide note itself is a matter of dispute and
     that mere reference to the applicant therein, even if taken into
     consideration, would not by itself be sufficient to constitute the offence
     of abetment of suicide. Learned counsel also submits that the
     ingredients of the offence have to be strictly satisfied and that the
     applicant cannot be subjected to criminal trial merely on the basis of
     suspicion or disputed material. In support of his contention, learned
     counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon a judgment of the
                                                      NA528 No. 6772 of 2026
                             2


  Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ayyub and Others Vs. State of U.P. and
  another reported in 2025 (131) ACC 598.

4. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the other hand, has
  opposed the prayer and submits that the allegations made in the first
  information report are supported by the statement of the informant
  recorded during investigation. It is further submitted that the suicide
  note recovered during investigation was sent for forensic examination
  and, as per the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, there are
  similarities in the disputed handwriting and the admitted handwriting
  samples of the deceased. The learned counsel further submits that the
  material collected during investigation discloses a prima facie case
  against the applicant and the defence of the applicant cannot be
  examined in proceedings under Section 528 B.N.S.S.

5. Having considered the rival submissions and upon perusal of the
  record, it appears that the F.I.R. contains specific allegations regarding
  the deceased being threatened, harassed and subjected to blackmailing,
  pursuant to which he allegedly committed suicide. The informant, in
  his statement recorded during investigation, has supported the
  allegations made in the F.I.R. and has also stated that the deceased had
  disclosed the alleged harassment to his family members shortly before
  his death.

6. The record further indicates that a suicide note was recovered during
  investigation. The same was sent for forensic examination along with
  admitted handwriting samples of the deceased. The Forensic Science
  Laboratory report records similarities in the writing characteristics of
  the disputed writings marked Q1 and Q2 and the sample writings
  marked A1 to A12 and, after examination, expresses the opinion that
  the combination of the writing characteristics was sufficient to arrive at
  the opinion of identity.

7. Thus, at this stage, the material collected during investigation,
  including the allegations in the F.I.R., the statement of the informant
  and the F.S.L. report, cannot be brushed aside. Whether the allegations
  are ultimately proved, whether the suicide note is genuine, and what
  evidentiary value is to be attached to the statements and forensic report
  are matters which are required to be considered by the trial court on
  the basis of evidence led before it. The Court, while exercising
  jurisdiction under Section 528 B.N.S.S., is not required to undertake a
  meticulous examination of the evidence or to determine the disputed
  questions of fact as if conducting a trial.

8. The judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant in
  Ayyub and Others Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in 2025
  (131) ACC 598 is distinguishable on the facts of the present case and,
  therefore, is not applicable to the instant matter.

9. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan
                                                           NA528 No. 6772 of 2026
                               3


   Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 has laid down the guidelines under which
   circumstances the Court should, in its inherent power, entertain an
   application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The guidelines are as follows:-
        "(i) Where the allegations made in the first information
        report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face
        value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie
        constitute any offence or make out a case against the
        accused.

        (ii) Where the allegations in the first information report and
        other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not
        disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by
        police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except
        under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section
        155(2) of the Code.

        (iii) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR
        or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the
        same do not disclose the commission of any offence and
        make out a case against the accused.

        (iv) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a
        cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable
        offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer
        without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under
        Section 155(2) of the Code.

        (v) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are
        so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which
        no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that
        there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

        (vi) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of
        the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (under
        which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution
        and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a
        specific provision in the Code or the Act concerned,
        providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the
        aggrieved party.

        (vii) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with
        mala fides and/or where the proceeding is maliciously
        instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on
        the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and
        personal grudge."

10. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of M/s Neeharika
   Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC
   1918, R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of
   Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192, and Zandu
   Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another,
   (2005) SCC (Cr.) 283, has held that the inherent jurisdiction is to be
   exercised sparingly and only in appropriate cases where the material
                                                                                                NA528 No. 6772 of 2026
                                                                       4


                                             on record does not disclose a prima facie case or where the
                                             continuation of the criminal proceedings would otherwise amount to
                                             abuse of the process of law.

                                          11. The instant application does not fall within any of the categories laid
                                             down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgments mentioned
                                             above. Moreover, on a plain reading of the allegations contained in the
                                             F.I.R., the statement of the informant and the material collected during
                                             investigation, including the F.S.L. report, it cannot be said that, prima
                                             facie, no offence is made out against the applicant. The disputed
                                             questions as to the genuineness and evidentiary value of the suicide
                                             note, the nature of the alleged harassment and the role attributed to the
                                             applicant cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 528
                                             B.N.S.S. and are matters for consideration by the trial court.

                                          12. Hence, the instant application filed under Section 528 B.N.S.S. cannot
                                             be entertained and is, accordingly, dismissed.

                                    September 23, 2026
                                    pks

                                                                                              (Madan Pal Singh,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
PANKAJ KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad