SHIVAM YADAV AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                 APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 9579 of 2026

Shivam Yadav And 2 Others
                                                           .....Applicant(s)
                                   Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s)               :    Prem Chand Saroj
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)          :    G.A., Kailash Nath Singh

Court No. - 75
                  HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Heard Sri Prem Chand Saroj, learned counsel for applicants and Sri
Kailash Nath Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as
learned AGA for State.

2. Present application has been preferred with the prayer to quash the
chargesheet dated 23.8.2025 and cognizance/summoning order dated
6.12.2025 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 3rd,
Court no. 14, Jaunpur along with entire criminal proceedings of Case No.
502 of 2025 (State Vs. Mahadev Yadav and others), arising out of Case
Crime No. 0194 of 2025, under Sections 74, 76, 115(2), 351(2), 352 BNS,
P.S.- Kerakat, District Jaunpur, pending in the court of learned Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, 3rd, Court no. 14, Jaunpur.

3. Learned counsel for applicants argued that applicants have been falsely
implicated in the present case by opposite party no.2 only to harass them,
whereas by bare perusal of the narration made in the FIR, there is hardly
any allegation levelled against applicants upon which trial can proceed.
The allegations levelled in the FIR as well as in the statements recorded
by the informant, are only against one co-accused Mahadev Yadav. No
specific allegation has been levelled against the applicants herein. As per
injury report appended as Annexure no. 2, no injury has been sustained by
the informant, except complaint of pain. Learned counsel for applicants
has further submitted that the present criminal proceeding is abuse of
process of law. Learned counsel for applicants further submitted that if
there is hardly any allegation levelled against applicants then under which
                                                        NA528 No. 9579 of 2026
                               2


circumstance, the concerned Investigating Officer submitted chargesheet
against them whereupon without applying its judicial mind, learned court
concerned took cognizance of offence over the said chargesheet which is
bad in the eye of law and as such, same may be quashed. In support of his
submissions, learned counsel for applicants placed reliance upon a
judgment passed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of State of
Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335].

4. Per contra, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as learned
AGA vehemently opposed the prayer as made in the application by way
of submitting that the contentions, which are sought to be raised on behalf
of applicants, would relate to disputed questions of fact, and would
involve appreciation of evidence.

5. After having the rival contentions raised by learned counsel for parties
and perusal of the entire material available on record, this Court finds that
there is hardly any role against the applicants herein whereas the specific
role has been assigned, as per narration of the FIR along with statements
recorded under sections 180 and 183 BNSS, against only one co-accused
namely Mahadev Yadav. So far as the injuries are concerned, that are
only complaint of pain and as such implication of the applicants in instant
Case Crime no. 0194 of 2025, seems to be unjustified. In a similar matter,
in the case of Sanjay D. Jain & others Vs. State of Maharashtra &
others [2025 LiveLaw (SC) 960], wherein Hon'ble the Apex Court has
held that if the allegations as made were entirely vague in nature and in
the absence of any details whatsoever it could not be said that even a
prima facie case had been made out for proceeding with the trial.

6. In the case of Mahmood Ali and others vs. State of U.P. and others
(Criminal Appeal No. 2341 of 2023, decided on 08.08.2023), Hon'ble the
Supreme Court observed that when an accused comes before the High
Court, invoking either the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or
the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, to get
the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed, essentially on the ground
that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted
with the ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance, then in such
circumstances, the High Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care
                                                                NA528 No. 9579 of 2026
                                   3


and a little more closely. It was further observed that it will not be enough
for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone
for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to
constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not as, in frivolous or
vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other
attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and
above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection, to
try and read between the lines. .

7. In Bhajan Lal (supra), Hon'ble the Supreme Court had already set out
the broad categories of cases in which the inherent power under Section
482 Cr.P.C. could be exercised. Para 102 of the decision reads as follows:

     '102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant
     provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law
     enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of
     the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under
     Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above,
     we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein
     such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of
     any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be
     possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently
     channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an
     exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be
     exercised.

     (1) 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.

     (2) 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.

     (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint
                                                              NA528 No. 9579 of 2026
                                   4


     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.

     (4) 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.

     (5) 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.

     (6) 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.

     (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide
     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.'

8. The case in hand, the allegations against the applicants, such as they
are, are wholly insufficient and, prima facie, do not make out a case
against them. Further, they are so farfetched and improbable that no
prudent person can conclude that there are sufficient grounds to proceed
against them. In effect, the present case falls squarely in categories (1)
and (3) set out in Bhajan Lal (supra) and as such, permitting the criminal
process to go on against the applicants herein in such a situation would,
therefore, result in clear and patent injustice. This is a fit case for
exercising its inherent power under Section 528 BNSS to quash entire
proceedings.

9. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances as well as in
light of said decisions of Hon'ble the Apex Court, chargesheet dated
23.8.2025 and cognizance/summoning order dated 6.12.2025 along with
entire criminal proceedings of Case No. 502 of 2025 (State Vs. Mahadev
                                                                                            NA528 No. 9579 of 2026
                                                                   5


                                    Yadav and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 0194 of 2025, under
                                    Sections 74, 76, 115(2), 351(2), 352 BNS, P.S.- Kerakat, District Jaunpur
                                    are hereby quashed only in respect of applicants namely Shivam
                                    Yadav, Ajeet Yadav and Jagdish Yadav.

                                    10. Accordingly, the instant application is allowed.

                                    11. However, it is made clear that this order will not be taken as parity for
                                    co-accused namely Mahadev Yadav.



                                                                                       (Saurabh Srivastava,J.)
                                    March 18, 2026
                                    Shaswat




Digitally signed by :-
SHASWAT SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad