Allahabad High Court

SUNEEL KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 9 April 2026
Bench: CHAWAN PRAKASH

Holding

The High Court held that the trial court correctly found a prima facie case and therefore the application to quash the order under Section 528 BNSS was dismissed.

Summary

The applicant, Suneel Kumar, filed an application under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking to quash the order of the Additional Sessions Judge dated 04‑09‑2025, which had dismissed his discharge application under Section 250 BNSS. He alleged that the FIR was lodged after an unexplained delay, that the victim was a consenting party, and that there were material contradictions between the FIR and the victim’s statements recorded under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS. The State argued that the trial court had properly considered the investigation report and found a prima facie case against the applicant. The High Court examined the settled principles that a judge must determine whether the prosecution’s evidence discloses at least a suspicion, if not a grave suspicion, of guilt before framing charges. After reviewing the record, the Court concluded that the trial court’s reasoning was sound, that a prima facie case existed, and that there was no ground to quash the order. Consequently, the application under Section 528 BNSS was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the discharge application under Section 250 BNSS on the ground that a prima facie case existed.
Whether the order dated 04‑09‑2025 can be quashed under Section 528 BNSS of the BNSS.
Whether the evidence on record discloses sufficient suspicion to warrant continuation of the trial.

Legislation cited

BNSS — s. 180, 183, 250, 351, 528, 64, 87
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 227

Subjects

discharge application
prima facie case
quash order
Section 528 BNSS
Section 250 BNSS
rape allegation
victim statement
Criminal Procedure Code

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 7054 of 2026

Suneel Kumar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Manoj Kumar Tripathi, Vinod Kumar
Tirpathi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 81
HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. This application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed with the
following prayer:

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may
graciously be pleased to allow the application and quash the impugned
order dated 04.09.2025 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C. Court
No. 01, Bijnor in S.T.No. 1776 of 2025 (State Vs. Suneel Kumar) arising out
of Case Crime No. 34 of 2025 under section 87, 64, 351(3) of BNS Police
Station Noorpur, District Bijnor."

3. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that a First Information Report
as Case Crime No. 34 of 2025 was registered at Police Station Noorpur,
District Binjor under Sections 87, 64 and 351(3) BNSS against the applicant.
The same was lodged with in unexplained delay of 20 days. The applicant is
innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The victim
seem to be a consenting party as she travelled with the applicant all the way
to Chhattisgarh, Delhi and Haryana and not raised any alarm. During
investigation, statement of the victim was recorded under Section 180 and
183 BNSS. There is material contradiction in the F.I.R. and the statement
given by the prosecutrix during investigation. After investigation, charge-
sheet was filed against the applicant. He filed an application under Section
250 BNSS seeking discharge. He further submits that no prima facie case is
made out against him but the learned Trial Court, vide order dated
NA528 No. 7054 of 2026
2

04.09.2025 has dismissed the discharge application without considering the
facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, the impugned order dated
04.09.2025 may be quashed.

4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. submits that the Trial Court has not committed
any error in rejecting the discharge application filed by the applicant as the
learned Trial Court has rejected the said application after taking into
consideration the evidence collected by the Investigation Officer. The Trial
Court found that a prima facie case is made out against the revisionists.
Hence, this application is liable to be dismissed.

5. As per the fact of the case, a First Information Report as Case Crime No.
34 of 2025 was registered at Police Station Noorpur, District Binjor under
Sections 87, 64 and 351(3) BNSS regarding an offence of rape committed by
the applicant with the wife of opposite party no.2. Statement of the victim
was recorded under Section 180 and 183 BNSS in which she has fully
supported the case of the prosecution. The applicant has filed an application
under Section 250 BNSS which was dismissed by the learned Trial Court
vide order dated 04.09.2025.

6. The parameters for grant of relief of discharge are well settled by a catena
of judicial precedent. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P. Vijayan
vs. State of Kerala, (2010) 2 SCC 398 held that the Judge is not a mere post
office to frame charge but the Judge should exercise his judicial mind and
discretion to determine whether a case for trial has been made out by the
prosecution. It was further clarified that the Judge should be satisfied that the
evidence produced by the prosecution before the Court discloses suspicion
that the accused has committed the crime.

7. In the case of Dilawar Balu Kurane vs. The State of Maharashtra,
(2002) 2 SCC 135, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that in exercising
powers under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the settled
position of law is that the Judge while considering the question of framing
the charge under the said section has the undoubted power to sift and weigh
the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima
facie case against the accused has been made out and whether the materials
placed before the Court discloses grave suspicion against the accused which
has not been properly explained to the Court, then in such a case the Court
will be fully justified in framing the charge and proceed with the trial. On
NA528 No. 7054 of 2026
3

the other hand, if the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before the
Court gives rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion then the Judge
will be fully justified in discharging the accused.

7. Further, as is evident, all the submissions made at the bar relate to the
disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court
in this revision. At this stage, only a prima facie case is to be seen in the
light of the settled law, as discussed here-in-above. From a perusal of the
material available on record and keeping in view the facts of the case, at this
stage, it cannot be said that offences levelled against the applicant are not
made out. The impugned order reveals that the learned Trial Court has given
clear and categorical reasoning in passing the impugned order. The
impugned order does not suffer from illegality, infirmity, perversity or lack
of judicial mind. The prayer made in the application is refused.

8. In view of the above, the present application is dismissed.

April 10, 2026
Vijay
(Chawan Prakash,J.)

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…