SURYA PRATAP SAINI ND 2 OTHERS v. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
NA528/19005/2025 · 2025-09-23
Deepak Verma
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 63209 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 63209 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 19005 of 2025 Court No. - 72 HON'BLE DEEPAK VERMA, J.
1. Heard Sri Sarvanand Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri P. P. Pandey, learned AGA for the State. 2. The present 528 BNSS application has been filed to quash the Charge-sheet dated 21.01.2023, alongwith cognizance and summoning order dated 18.9.2023 passed in Criminal Case No.7520/2022 (State of U.P. vs. Surya Pratap Saini and Ors.) by Judicial Magistrate Kasya, Kushinagar, under Sections 323,325,427,504 and 506 IPC, arising out of Case Crime No.421/2022, P.S.-Patherwa, District-Kushinagar. 3. Counsel for the applicant submits that it is alleged in the FIR that parties came with lathi, danda, hockey, rod and assaulted each other, as a result whereof, both the parties received injuries. Applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case due to mala fide intention. Cognizance and summoning by learned Magistrate is without application of judicial mind. Statement recorded by I.O. during investigation is not prosecuting the applicants in the present case. 4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the submission raised by applicants' counsel and submits that Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sarvanand Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Surya Pratap Saini Nd 2 Others .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s)
submission raised by applicants' counsel are disputed questions of fact. Both the parties lodged FIR against each other and received grievous injuries. FIR lodged by applicant is pending against the opposite party No.2. Trial is going on. Injury report is supporting the prosecution story. No interference is warranted. 5. The grounds taken in the application reveal that many of them relate to disputed question of fact. This Court is of the view that it is well settled that the appreciation of evidence is a function of the trial court. This Court in exercise of power under Section 528 BNSS cannot assume such jurisdiction and put an end to the process of trial provided under the law.
It is also settled by the Apex Court in catena of judgments that The impugned criminal proceeding against the applicants is abuse of the process of the Court and is liable to be quashed by this Court.the power under Section 528 BNSS at pre-trial stage should not be used in a routine manner but it has to be used sparingly, only in such an appropriate cases, where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the criminal proceedings or where allegations made in First Information Report or charge-sheet and the materials relied in support of same, on taking their face value and accepting in their entirety do not disclose the commission of any offence against the accused. The disputed questions of facts and defence of the accused cannot be taken into consideration at this pre-trial stage. 6. In view of the above, in the light of judgment of the Apex Court in the matters of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, Manik B. Vs. Kadapala Sreyes Reddy and another, 2023 Live Law (SC) 642, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283, no ground for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case, is made out which may call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 528 BNSS as the same do not suffer from NA528 No. 19005 of 2025 2
any illegality or infirmity. 7. The present 528 BNSS application of applicant, namely, Surya Pratap Saini, Krishna Murari Saini and Vivek Saini, is hereby dismissed with the aforesaid observation. 8.
However, if the applicants surrender before the concerned court within three weeks from today and apply for bail, the bail application shall be decided expeditiously by the court concerned, in accordance with law. September 24, 2025 Nitin Verma NA528 No. 19005 of 2025 3 (Deepak Verma,J.) Digitally signed by :- NITIN KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad