HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 23019 of 2026 Court No. - 79 HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for applicants and learned AGA for State. 2. Present application has been preferred with the prayer to quash the entire proceeding of impugned summoning and cognizance order dated 19.02.2026 in Case No.2336 of 2026 (State Vs. Manoj Pandey and another) passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ballia as well as impugned chargesheet dated 24.08.2025, arising out of Case Crime No.222 of 2025, under Sections 291 and 352 of BNS, P.S. Kotwali, District Ballia. 3. On previous occasion notices were issued to opposite party no.2 and the same has been reported as served, when the matter has been taken up today none appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2 either in person or through counsel. No option left but to consider the prayer as made through instant application on the basis of documents available in the records as well as arguments raised by learned counsel for the applicant, although it is moral and legal obligation upon the opposite party no.2 to put his appearance after service of notice before any forum of law for protecting and defending the case when the same has been challenged. 4. 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. It Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Brajesh Kumar Chaturvedi, Harsh Tiwari, Kriti Rudra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Manoj Pandey @ Manoj Kumar Pandey And Another .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) has also been argued by learned counsel for applicants that only to make pressure upon applicants present FIR has been filed. He further submitted that FIR has been lodged with intention to harass the applicants due to pre-existing neighbourhood disputes, and the allegation regarding the bite of dog is patently false as the said dog was a street dog, not owned, kept or controlled by the applicants at any point of time. 5. Learned counsel for applicant further submitted that no CCTV footage or independent evidence could be found due to delay. He further submitted that applicant No.2 is a young student pursuing his studies and he never involved in any unlawful activity and he has no motive or reason to engage in any such alleged incident. None of the independent persons residing near the place of occurrence have supported the prosecution story. The case diary and CDRs repeatedly records that neighbours stated that co-accused Rohit Pandey and Smt. Kanchan Pandey were not present on the spot and on one witnesses any quarrel or assault as alleged. He further submitted that no independent corroboration of the prosecution story. Learned counsel for applicants further submitted that if there is hardly any allegation levelled against applicants then under which 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 applicant 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]. 6. Per contra, 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. 7. After having the rival contentions raised by learned counsel for parties and perusal of the entire material available on record, this Court finds that no case is made out against applicants for proceeding with the trial since the allegations as made that applicants is only on the basis of concocted story which requires that investigation, are entirely vague in nature. In a NA528 No. 23019 of 2026 2 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. 8. 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 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. 9. 9. 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 NA528 No. 23019 of 2026 3 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 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 NA528 No. 23019 of 2026 4 him due to private and personal grudge.' 10. 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) (3) and (5) 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. 11. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances as well as in light of said decisions of Hon'ble the Apex Court,the entire proceeding of impugned summoning and cognizance order dated 19.02.2026 in Case No.2336 of 2026 (State Vs. Manoj Pandey and another) passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ballia as well as impugned chargesheet dated 24.08.2025, arising out of Case Crime No.222 of 2025, under Sections 291 and 352 of BNS, P.S. Kotwali, District Ballia, are hereby quashed. 12. Accordingly, the instant application is allowed. September 8, 2026 Ashish/- NA528 No. 23019 of 2026 5 (Saurabh Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHISH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad