HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 9579 of 2026 Court No. - 75 HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Heard Sri Prem Chand Saroj, learned counsel for applicants and Sri Kailash Nath Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as learned AGA for State. 2. Present application has been preferred with the prayer to quash the chargesheet dated 23.8.2025 and cognizance/summoning order dated 6.12.2025 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 3rd, Court no. 14, Jaunpur along with entire criminal proceedings of Case No. 502 of 2025 (State Vs. Mahadev Yadav and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 0194 of 2025, under Sections 74, 76, 115(2), 351(2), 352 BNS, P.S.- Kerakat, District Jaunpur, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 3rd, Court no. 14, Jaunpur. 3. Learned counsel for applicants argued that applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case by opposite party no.2 only to harass them, whereas by bare perusal of the narration made in the FIR, there is hardly any allegation levelled against applicants upon which trial can proceed. The allegations levelled in the FIR as well as in the statements recorded by the informant, are only against one co-accused Mahadev Yadav. No specific allegation has been levelled against the applicants herein. As per injury report appended as Annexure no. 2, no injury has been sustained by the informant, except complaint of pain. Learned counsel for applicants has further submitted that the present criminal proceeding is abuse of process of law. Learned counsel for applicants further submitted that if there is hardly any allegation levelled against applicants then under which Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Prem Chand Saroj Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Kailash Nath Singh Shivam Yadav And 2 Others .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) circumstance, the concerned Investigating Officer submitted chargesheet against them whereupon without applying its judicial mind, learned court concerned took cognizance of offence over the said chargesheet which is bad in the eye of law and as such, same may be quashed. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for applicants placed reliance upon a judgment passed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335]. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer as made in the application by way of submitting that the contentions, which are sought to be raised on behalf of applicants, would relate to disputed questions of fact, and would involve appreciation of evidence. 5. After having the rival contentions raised by learned counsel for parties and perusal of the entire material available on record, this Court finds that there is hardly any role against the applicants herein whereas the specific role has been assigned, as per narration of the FIR along with statements recorded under sections 180 and 183 BNSS, against only one co-accused namely Mahadev Yadav. So far as the injuries are concerned, that are only complaint of pain and as such implication of the applicants in instant Case Crime no. 0194 of 2025, seems to be unjustified. In a similar matter, in the case of Sanjay D. Jain & others Vs. State of Maharashtra & others [2025 LiveLaw (SC) 960], wherein Hon'ble the Apex Court has held that if the allegations as made were entirely vague in nature and in the absence of any details whatsoever it could not be said that even a prima facie case had been made out for proceeding with the trial. 6. In the case of Mahmood Ali and others vs. State of U.P. and others (Criminal Appeal No. 2341 of 2023, decided on 08.08.2023), Hon'ble the Supreme Court observed that when an accused comes before the High Court, invoking either the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed, essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances, the High Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care NA528 No. 9579 of 2026 2 and a little more closely. It was further observed that it will not be enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not as, in frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection, to try and read between the lines. . 7. In Bhajan Lal (supra), Hon'ble the Supreme Court had already set out the broad categories of cases in which the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. could be exercised. Para 102 of the decision reads as follows: '102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint NA528 No. 9579 of 2026 3 and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.' 8. The case in hand, the allegations against the applicants, such as they are, are wholly insufficient and, prima facie, do not make out a case against them. Further, they are so farfetched and improbable that no prudent person can conclude that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against them. In effect, the present case falls squarely in categories (1) and (3) set out in Bhajan Lal (supra) and as such, permitting the criminal process to go on against the applicants herein in such a situation would, therefore, result in clear and patent injustice. This is a fit case for exercising its inherent power under Section 528 BNSS to quash entire proceedings. 9. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances as well as in light of said decisions of Hon'ble the Apex Court, chargesheet dated 23.8.2025 and cognizance/summoning order dated 6.12.2025 along with entire criminal proceedings of Case No. 502 of 2025 (State Vs. Mahadev NA528 No. 9579 of 2026 4 Yadav and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 0194 of 2025, under Sections 74, 76, 115(2), 351(2), 352 BNS, P.S.- Kerakat, District Jaunpur are hereby quashed only in respect of applicants namely Shivam Yadav, Ajeet Yadav and Jagdish Yadav. 10. Accordingly, the instant application is allowed. 11. However, it is made clear that this order will not be taken as parity for co-accused namely Mahadev Yadav. March 18, 2026 Shaswat NA528 No. 9579 of 2026 5 (Saurabh Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHASWAT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad