HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 49070 of 2025 Court No. - 80 HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J. 1. Heard Sri Sudhakar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The present application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed to quash the entire proceeding of Case No.20372 of 2018 (State Vs. Raja Balmiki and others) arising out of Case Crime No.278 of 2017 under Sections 307, 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 332, 333, 336, 353, 153-A, 436, 427, 188, 285-A, 186 I.P.C. and Section 7 of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act and Section 3/4 Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, Police Station Juhi, District Kanpur Nagar and also to quash the impugned charge sheet dated 3.4.2018 and set aside the cognizance/summoning order dated 18.04.2018 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (SD), F.T.C., Kanpur Nagar and NBW order dated 30.4.2019 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate-IInd, Kanpur Nagar and 28.5.2025 passed by the learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that an FIR, being Case Crime No.278 of 2017, under Sections 307, 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 332, 333, 336, 353, 153-A, 436, 427, 188, 285-A and 186 I.P.C., along with Section 7 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act and Sections 3/4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, was registered against the applicant along with 54 named persons and some unknown persons. After completion of investigation, the police submitted a charge-sheet against the applicant along with other co-accused persons. It is further Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sudhakar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Raja @ Raja Balmiki .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) submitted that the learned Magistrate took cognizance on the said charge- sheet vide order dated 18.04.2018, however, in the said cognizance order, the names of the accused persons were not specified and, therefore, no cognizance can be said to have been taken against the present applicant. It is next submitted that, without properly taking cognizance against the applicant, the learned Magistrate proceeded to issue a non-bailable warrant vide order dated 30.04.2019, again without specifying the names of the accused persons. Thereafter, on 28.05.2025, the learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate issued non-bailable warrants in the name of the applicant along with 20 other accused persons. Learned counsel for the applicants contends that the learned Magistrate has failed to properly appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case and has passed the impugned orders, including the order of cognizance/summoning as well as issuance of non-bailable warrants, without due application of judicial mind. Therefore, the impugned orders suffer from manifest illegality and infirmity and is liable to be set aside. 4. Per contra, learned AGA has opposed the prayer of the applicant and contended that FIR, being Case Crime No.278 of 2017, under Sections 307, 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 332, 333, 336, 353, 153-A, 436, 427, 188, 285-A and 186 I.P.C., along with Section 7 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act and Sections 3/4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, was registered against the applicant along with 54 named persons and some unknown persons. After investigation, the police submitted a charge sheet against the applicant along with other co- accused persons. It is further submitted that the learned Additional Civil Judge (SD), F.T.C., Kanpur Nagar, vide order dated 18.04.2018, took cognizance against the accused persons and has not committed any illegality in passing the impugned cognizance order. The learned Magistrate has rightly taken cognizance on the basis of the material collected during investigation. Hence, the present application lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 5. From the facts of the present case, it transpires that an FIR, being Case Crime No.278 of 2017, under Sections 307, 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 332, 333, 336, 353, 153-A, 436, 427, 188, 285-A and 186 I.P.C., along with Section 7 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act and Sections 3/4 of NA528 No. 49070 of 2025 2 the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, was registered against the applicant along with 54 named persons and some unknown persons. After investigation, the police filed charge sheet dated 03.04.2018 against the applicant along with other co-accused persons. The learned Additional Civil Judge (S.D.), F.T.C., Kanpur Nagar took cognizance on the said charge sheet vide order dated 18.04.2018. A perusal of the cognizance order dated 18.04.2018 shows that the learned Additional Civil Judge considered the entire case diary and, upon such consideration, took cognizance of the offences disclosed therein. From the said order, it is clear that cognizance was taken against all the charge-sheeted accused persons, including the present applicant. The argument advanced on behalf of the applicant that no cognizance was taken against him is not borne out from the record. At this stage, it also cannot be said that no prima facie case is made out against the applicant. 6. Accordingly, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any good ground to quash the aforesaid proceedings. The prayer for quashing the same is, therefore, refused. 7. The application lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. March 19, 2026 Md Faisal NA528 No. 49070 of 2025 3 (Chawan Prakash,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHD FAISAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad