HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 51893 of 2025 Court No. - 73 HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Manish Goyal, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This application has been filed by the applicants with the following prayers:- "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash the proceeding of Criminal Case No. 17940/9 of 2025 [State Vs. Shah Mohammad Rana & others], Case Crime No. 357 of 2024, U/s 191[2], 121[1], 132, 115[2], 352, 351[2], 131, 125, 324[4], 324[5], 109(1), 61[2](a) of B.N.S. & Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S. Civil Lines, District Muzaffar Nagar, pending before the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffar Nagar for charge sheet dated 17.3.2025 as well as its order of cognizance/summoning dated 11.7.2025. It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to stay the further proceeding of Criminal Case No. 17940/9 of 2025 [State Vs. Shah Mohammad Rana & others], Case Crime No. 357 of 2024, U/s 191[2], 121[1], 132, 115[2], 352, 351[2], 131, 125, 324[4], 324[5], 109(1), 61[2](a) of B.N.S. & Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S. Civil Lines, District Muzaffar Nagar, pending before the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffar Nagar for charge sheet dated 17.3.2025 as well as its order of cognizance/summoning dated 11.7.2025, Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sushil Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Nasir Rana And Another .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) during the pendency of the present application. And/or to pass any suitable order or direction to which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice." 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants were not named in the First Information Report and First Information Report was lodged on 5.12.2024. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that when GST raid team approached the premises in question for raid, the incident alleged to have taken place where the accused named in the First Information Report along with others alleged to have disturb the raid proceedings and have assaulted the raid team. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that applicants were not named in the First Information Report and applicant no. 1 is a Journalist. The name of applicants has surfaced in the statement of Smt. Shreya Gupta who was the Deputy Director, DGGI Dehradun and was leading the raid team. Her statement has been recorded where she has stated that applicants along with other accused persons were assaulting and pushing the officers of the raid team. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that there was no such allegation in the First Information Report. However, subsequently when the statement of the aforesaid officer was recorded the officer has stated the name of the applicants. The First Information Report was lodged by one Kaushal Kumar, Intelligence Officer, DGGI, Meerut Zone. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that statement of Smt. Shreya Gupta is a hearsay evidence. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the informant was also present along with Ms. Shreya Gupta, therefore, the improvement in the statement of Ms. Shreya Gupta is not tenable under law. There is no medial report in respect of injuries suffered by any of the staff including Smt. Shreya Gupta. 4. Sri Manish Goyal, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the application and submits that GST raid led by Smt. Shreya Gupta has approached the premises in question where the raid was held and assault was made by named persons and 300 other accused persons. Law was taken in the hands by the accused persons and raid team was not permitted to complete their work and as a result of the same raid team NA528 No. 51893 of 2025 2 members were assaulted. There is a statement of Smt. Shreya Gupta, Deputy Director, DGGI Dehradun, under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS assaulting the raid team. It is further submitted that even in the statement of Sri Mayank Sharma, who was the Intelligence Officer, DGGI Meerut Zonal Unit as well as in the statement of Sri Vikas Gupta, Intelligence Officer, DGGJ, Meerut, who have also supported the allegation of Smt. Shreya Gupta. 5. It is to be seen that it is not in dispute from the statement of Smt. Shreya Gupta that applicants were also involved in assaulting the raid team. At this stage, the Court has only to consider whether any offence is made out against the applicants even assuming there is no injuries then also offence of assault/criminal force may be attracted to any person or any accused who has assaulted the other person who is a public servant. It is a settled law that the veracity of prosecution evidence is to be tested at the stage of trial and further the question as to which offence is attracted can always be at the time of framing of charge, however, from prosecution case it cannot be said that no offence is made out. The allegation that public servant were assaulted and their duties were interfered is a serious matter. 6. In view of the aforesaid, whether the incident has taken place in the manner in which the prosecution has stated, is a question of fact which is required to be considered at the time of trial. The petition lacks merit and is dismissed accordingly. April 20, 2026 VMA NA528 No. 51893 of 2025 3 (Vikram D. Chauhan,J.) Digitally signed by :- VISHWA MOHAN ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad