HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 31976 of 2026 Court No. - 79 HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J. 1.Heard Ms. Rinki Gupta, learned counsel for applicants, Sri Hasan Parvej, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned AGA for State. 2. Present application has been preferred with prayer to quash charge sheet dated 11.9.2025, cognizance order dated 31.01.2026 and entire proceeding of Case no. 474 of 2026 arising out of Case Crime no. 0288 of 2025 under sections 318(4), 351(2), 352 BNS, PS- Prem Nagar, District Bareilly pending before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-5, Bareilly. 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. Applicant no. 1 is daughter-in-law of opposite party no. 2 while applicant nos. 2, 3 and 4 are mother, father and brother of applicant no. 1 respectively. Allegation in the FIR is that marriage of applicant no. 1 was fixed with son of opposite party no. 2 and before marriage applicant no. 1 took certain amount of money from opposite party no. 2 on false promise. After marriage she again took certain amount of money and certain gold jewellery and left her matrimonial house extending death threats to family of opposite party no. 2. Learned counsel for applicants has further submitted that the present criminal proceeding is abuse of process of law. Applicants have neither demanded money nor brought any ornaments from house of opposite party no. 2. Complainant-opposite party no. 2 Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ankit Raj, Rinki Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Hasan Parvej Vanshika Katiyar And 3 Others .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) narrated a false and concocted story in the FIR. Since certain matrimonial disputes are still persisting between the parties before learned court concerned and as such only in retaliation, present FIR has been lodged against the applicants in counter-blast. No credible evidence has been collected during course of investigation. The concerned Investigating Officer submitted chargesheet against applicant 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]. 4. Per contra, Sri Hasan Parvej, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and 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 applicant, 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 no case is made out against applicants for proceeding with the trial since the amount so alleged to be transferred in favour of applicant no. 1 was after the marriage was settled to be held between applicant no. 1 with the son of opposite party no. 2 and so far as the second part of the allegations which has been put forward against the applicant no. 1 in respect of receiving certain gold items was of the incidence when the applicant no. 1 was leading a married life with the son of the opposite party no. 2 being the daughter-in-law of opposite party no. 2. Nothing has been corroborated through the narration of the FIR as well as investigation conducted by Investigating Officer for implicating the applicant no. 1 in respect of Section 420 IPC/318(4) of BNS and so far as other sections are concerned the same are non-cognizable and also not corroborated with the material collected during investigation, in which sections applicants have been implicated and summoned in pursuance to cognizance of offence taken up by learned court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-5, Bareilly. It is also confirmed in shape of fact which has not been disputed NA528 No. 31976 of 2026 2 by either of the learned counsel for the parties that the matrimonial dispute is still persisting between the parties and there are several matters preferred at the behest of applicant no. 1 and in retaliation, the instant matter has been registered at Case Crime no. 0288 of 2025 at the behest of opposite party no. 2 and as such no case is made out for putting applicants in unwarranted criminal litigation in pursuance to the allegation which has been saddled over the applicants. 6. 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 and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the NA528 No. 31976 of 2026 3 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.' 7. The case in hand, the allegations against the applicant, such as they are, are wholly insufficient and, prima facie, do not make out a case against him. Further, they are so farfetched and improbable that no prudent person can conclude that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against him. In effect, the present case falls squarely in categories (7) 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. 8. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances as well as in light of said decisions of Hon'ble the Apex Court, chargesheet dated 11.9.2025 and cognizance/summoning order dated 31.01.2026 along with entire criminal proceedings of Case no. 474 of 2026 arising out of Case Crime no. 0288 of 2025 under sections 318(4), 351(2), 352 BNS, PS- Prem Nagar, District Bareilly, are hereby quashed only in respect of NA528 No. 31976 of 2026 4 applicants herein. 9. Accordingly, the instant application is allowed. September 8, 2026 Shaswat NA528 No. 31976 of 2026 5 (Saurabh Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHASWAT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad