HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 44169 of 2026 Court No. - 73 HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as Shri Onkar Singh Malik, 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 20.05.2026, cognizance/ summoning order dated 18.09.2026 as well as entire proceeding of Sessions Trial No. 2000 of 2026 (State Vs. Vishal), arising out of Case Crime No. 64 of 2026, under Sections 74, 75(2), 78(2), 126(2), 352, 351(3) B.N.S. and Section 7/8 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, Police Station Ramala, District Baghpat, pending in the court of learned Additional District and Session Judge/ Special POCSO Act (Exclusive), Baghpat. 3. The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is 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. 4. At this stage, the argument raised by learned counsel for the applicant 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) : Pramod Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Vishal .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And 4 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. October 9, 2026 Mustaqeem. NA528 No. 44169 of 2026 2 (Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHD MUSTAQEEM KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad