HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 18974 of 2026 Court No. - 75 HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The present application has been filed praying for quashing the proceedings of Case No. 3135 of 2014 (State Vs. Lokmani kant Jadaun and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 331 of 2012 under Sections 149, 341, 332, 353, 427, 336, 504, 152 I.P.C., and Section 3 Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, 1984 Police Station Chhata, District Mathura pending before learned Judicial Magistrate, Chhata, District Mathura and also to quash the charge sheet dated 10.11.2014 as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 16.12.2014 and also to quash the non- bailable-warrant order dated 04.10.2025 passed in the aforesaid. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the applicant's name is Ram Krishna son of Sri Rajmal, whereas the accused of the present case is Ram Kishan Sharma son of Sri Ramman Sharma. He further submits that Ram Krishna son of Sri Rajmal and Ram Kishan Sharma son of Sri Ramman Sharma are two different person and that the applicant has been falsely implicated on the pretext of Ram Kishan Sharma son of Sri Ramman Sharma. He further submits that the applicant was not aware of the initiation of the instant prosecution against him and it was also in the month of October, 2025, he came to know about pending proceedings against him, when the police came to arrest the applicant at the behest of issuance of non-bailable warrant. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant was not named in the F.I.R. nor in the statement of first informant but in the subsequent statement of the first informant, the applicant has been roped in the present case. He further submits that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purpose of causing harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rohit Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Ramkrishna .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has contended that disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated before this Court, which may be seen during the trial, therefore the instant application is liable to be rejected outrightly. 5. Perusal of the report dated 27.01.2025 shows that the Ram Kishan Sharma son of Sri Ram Manman Sharma alias Ram Charan Sharma as well as Ram Krishna Sharma son of Sri Rajmal Sharma are the same and one person, copy of police report is at page no. 131 of paper book, therefore the arguments as advanced by learned counsel for the applicant has no force. Furthermore, all the submissions made at the bar, relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 528 of B.N.S.S.. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, 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. 6. The reliefs as sought by the applicants is refused. 7. However, looking at the nature of offence alleged and attending facts and circumstances of the case, as have been brought on record, it is directed that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within three weeks from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in accordance with law. 8. For a period of three weeks from today, the non-bailable warrant issued against the applicant shall be kept in abeyance. 9. The present application stands disposed of. September 29, 2026 S.Ali NA528 No. 18974 of 2026 2 (Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHAUKAT ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad