HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 1366 of 2025 Court No. - 14 HON'BLE RAJEEV SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This application has been filed with the following prayer:- "To quash the impugned charge-sheet dated 03.07.2025 vide Case Crime No.231/2025 under Sections 303(2), 329(3), 308(2), 351(3) B.N.S., Police Station- Gangaghat, District- Unnao and the order of cognizance and summoning order dated 20.08.2025 passed by/pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Unnao in Crl. Case No.14403/2025 "State Vs. Anshu Gupta @Amit Kumar & others" and further proceedings of the case passed in pursuance thereof." 3. On 09.10.2025, following order was passed:- "1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This application has been filed with the following prayer:- "To quash the impugned charge-sheet dated 03.07.2025 vide Case Crime No. 231 of 2025 u/s 303(2), 329(3), 308(2), 351(3) B.N.S., Police Station- Gangaghat, District- Unnao and the cognizance and summoning order dated 20.08.2025 passed by learned C.J.M., Unnao in Crl. Case No. 14403 of 2025 and further proceedings in pursuance thereof." 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the prosecution in question was initiated on the written complaint of the informant- Rajeev Kumar Agrawal with the allegations that he is recorded tenure holder of Gata Nos. 74(ga) and 76(ga) Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ramakar Shukla, Prateek Shrivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Shashi Kant Mishra .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) measuring total area 0.4500 hectares situated in Village- Sikandarpur Sarosi Khairha Gairahtamali, Pargana- Sirosi, Unnao. Further allegations are that the aforesaid land was covered by cement polls, but all the cement polls were removed by the notorious persons and the land was encroached. When the informant went to the said encroached land, one Devendra Awasthi along with three to four unknown persons scolded him by telling that they are taking care of the work of Anshu Gupta. It is also alleged therein that all the nearby lands had been transferred by Anshu Bhaiya in the accused persons' names, and in case the informant wants any land, he must pay rangdari of sum of Rs. 25 lakhs to Anshu Bhai, otherwise he will be cut into pieces. It is further submitted that the applicant is not unknown to the informant and merely on the basis of presumption, the charge-sheet was submitted, but there is no evidence against the applicant in the entire case diary for the alleged offense. The applicant was implicated in three cases, out of which, in one case, the alleged offense is punishable upto seven years, hence, the notice has already been served upon him u/s 41-A Cr.P.C. and in another case, his arrest has already been stayed. The detail of criminal cases against the applicant is explained in Para 21 to 24. Relying on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Mohd. Wajid and Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. reported in Crl. Appeal No. 2340 of 2023, dated 08.08.2023, Para 34, learned counsel for the applicant requests for indulgence of this Court. 4. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposes the prayer of the applicant and submits that after collecting the sufficient evidence, the charge-sheet was submitted by the Investigating Officer. However, learned A.G.A. cannot explain the role of the applicant on the basis of statement recorded u/s 180 B.N.S.S.. Therefore, he requests for some time. 5. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perusing the charge-sheet as well as other relevant material annexed with the application, no role is assigned to the applicant for the alleged offenses. Therefore, the matter requires consideration. 6. List this case on 10.11.2025. 7. On the next date, the Investigating Officer shall appear in person before this Court along with complete case diary and shall explain as to how the alleged offenses are made out against the applicant on the basis of the evidence collected by him. 8. In the meantime, the Supervisory Officer concerned shall file counter affidavit, failing which, he shall appear in person before this Court. 9. Till the next date, the impugned proceedings shall remain stayed." NA528 No. 1366 of 2025 2 4. Mr. Dilip Kumar Prajapati, Sub Inspector, Police Station- Gangaghat, District- Unnao is present today before this Court alongwith case diary. 5. Learned A.G.A. has filed counter affidavit duly sworn by Mr. Deepak Yadav, Assistant Superintendent of Police/Circle Officer, City, Unnao, which is taken on record. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that it is admitted in para 13 of the counter affidavit that on mere presumption shown in the statement of the complainant recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C., the charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant. He further submits that except the presumption, there is no evidence against the applicant. He next submits that on mere presumption shown in the case diary, a person cannot be tried, hence, indulgence of this Court is required. 7. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposes the prayer of the applicant. However, he does not dispute the fact that in the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., apprehension has been shown that in case any incident is happened, the applicant and other accused persons, namely, Devendra Awasthi, Anshu Gupta and Rajkumar Nishad would be responsible for it. 8. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, counter affidavit as well as other relevant materials, it is evident that in the para 13 of the counter affidavit, it is specifically mentioned that only apprehension has been shown against the applicant by the complainant. The photocopy of the case diary placed before this Court by learned A.G.A. reveals that except apprehension shown by the complainant, there is no evidence against the applicant. Therefore, this Court is of the view that there is no material available in the case diary against the applicant for the alleged offence. 9. With above observations, the application is allowed. The proceedings of Crl. Case No. 14403/2025, arising out of Case Crime No.231/2025, under Sections 303(2), 329(3), 308(2), 351(3) B.N.S., Police Station- Gangaghat, District- Unnao, in relation to the applicant, are hereby quashed. 10. The photocopy of the case diary placed by learned A.G.A. is returned NA528 No. 1366 of 2025 3 to him. 11. The trial Court is directed to proceed in accordance with law in relation to other chargesheeted accused persons. 12. Office is directed to communicate this order to the trial Court, forthwith. November 19, 2025 Arpan NA528 No. 1366 of 2025 4 (Rajeev Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- ARPAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench