HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 14820 of 2026 Court No. - 73 HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J. 1. This application has been filed with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 0037 of 2025 (State Vs. Mridul Mondal and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 37 of 2025 under Sections 14 A (A) of Foreign Act, 1946 Police Station Madotanda, District Pilibhit pending before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Pilibhit and also to quash the charge sheet dated 21.03.2025 as well as to quash the summoning order dated 18.10.2025 passed in the aforesaid case. 2. Sri Vinai Saran, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Priyanshu Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant has contended 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. 3. At this stage, the argument raised by learned counsel for the applicants involves adjudication of a factual dispute and appraisal of evidence. 4. From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant at this stage. 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 Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Priyanshu Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Mridul Mondal .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 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. 5. Accordingly, the reliefs as sought by the applicant is refused. 6. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the applicant may be permitted to file discharge application. 7. It goes without saying that no such direction is required to be passed since it is open for the applicant to avail the remedy as available to him in accordance with law. 8. With the aforesaid observations, the instant application stands disposed off. October 5, 2026 S.Ali NA528 No. 14820 of 2026 2 (Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHAUKAT ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad