Dismissed

Sachin Alias Veeshu v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC19 Nov 2025NA528/10706/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicant sought quashing of a charge sheet and cognizance order under Sections 74, 76 and 115(2) BNS, alleging the FIR was lodged as a counter-blast over a gift deed dispute. The court declined to quash, directed the trial court to examine ingredients at charge-framing stage, dismissed the application, and instructed consideration of any bail application per law including Satyendra Kumar Antil.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; application dismissed with direction that trial court consider charge ingredients at framing and any bail application in accordance with law.

Sachin Alias Veeshu vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 10706 of 2025

¶3

Sachin Alias Veeshu		.....Applicant(s)
	Versus
State of U.P. and Another		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)		: Govind Saran Hajela
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)		: G.A.

¶4

Court No. - 82

¶5

HON'BLE PRAVEEN KUMAR GIRI, J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he has filed the instant application under Section 528 BNSS with the relief which has been mentioned in the prayer clause of the application.

¶8

The relief which has been mentioned in the application is delineated below:-

¶9

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow this Criminal Misc. Application by quashing the impugned charge sheet No. 308/24 dated 13.10.2024 as well as cognizance order dated 22.01.2025 in case No. 877 of 2025 (State Vs. Sachin @ Veeshu) arises from Case Crime No. 0375 of 2024, under Section 74, 76 & 115(2) of B.N.S., Police Station-Kotwali Mandi, District-Saharanpur.

¶10

It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to stay the further proceeding of case No. 877 of 2025 (State Vs. Sachin @ Veeshu) arises from Case Crime No. 0375 of 2024, under Section 74, 76 & 115(2) of B.N.S., Police Station-Kotwali Mandi, District-Saharanpur, during pendency of criminal misc. application, otherwise applicant would

¶11

NA528 No. 10706 of 2025

¶12

¶13

suffer irreparable loss and injury."

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the First Information Report (F.I.R.) has been lodged against the applicant as a counter-blast as a registered gift deed has been executed before the Sub Registrar by which the land has been gifted to opposite party no. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that after coming to the knowledge about the cancellation suit for cancellation of the gift deed, opposite party no. 2 on the concocted facts lodged the present F.I.R. as Case Crime No. 375 of 2024 under Sections 115(2), 76 and 74 of B.N.S. in respect of causing injury as well as outraging modesty of opposite party no. 2.

¶15

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the injury report does not corroborate the version of the F.I.R. He further submits that there is no eyewitness of the alleged account.

¶16

Per contra, learned A.G.A. submits that the name of Aman, brother of the victim, has been mentioned as a witness in the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer. He further submits that the material collected during investigation cannot be treated as an evidence and on the basis of same, the charge-sheet has been filed and the learned Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance, therefore, there is no such irregularity which vitiates the proceedings at this stage.

¶17

In view of the above facts and circumstances, the trial court is directed to consider the claim of the applicant at the time of framing of charge, whether the ingredients of the sections are made out or not. The material collected by the Investigating Officer cannot be treated as evidence. Evidence shall be considered at the trial stage after cross-examining the witnesses after their examination-in-chief.

¶18

With the above observations the application is dismissed .

¶19

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant wants to surrender before the court for obtaining bail, therefore, this Court directs that if the bail application is filed by the applicant, the trial court shall consider his bail application in accordance with law as well as the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Satyendra

¶20

NA528 No. 10706 of 2025

¶21

¶22

Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another (2022 SCC OnLine SC 825).

¶23

(Praveen Kumar Giri,J.)

¶24

November 19, 2025

¶25

K.Tiwari

¶26