HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 22332 of 2026 Court No. - 73 HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant and perused the material brought on record. 2. The present application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed with the prayer to quash the charge sheet dated 30.03.2023, cognizance/ summoning order dated 04.11.2025 as well as entire proceeding of Sessions Case No. 1960 of 2025 (State Vs. Mahendra & others), arising out of Case Crime No. 0216 of 2023, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 354 I.P.C. and Section 9/10 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, Act, Police Station Highway, District Mathura, pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (POCSO Act), Mathura. 3. The contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants 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. 4. At this stage, the argument raised by learned counsel for the applicants involves adjudication of a factual dispute and appraisal of evidence. 5. 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 BNSS. 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 Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Somveer Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Prashant Pandey Mahendra And 2 Others .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. 6. This Court in exercise of its power under Section 528 BNSS is not required to assess the correctness of the allegations and reliability of evidence. Thus, the prayer for quashing is refused. 7. The present application lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed. 8. Dismissed accordingly, leaving it open for the applicants to recourse other remedy available to them. October 6, 2026 Mustaqeem. NA528 No. 22332 of 2026 2 (Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHD MUSTAQEEM KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad