Ghanshyam and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:144990

Court No. - 72

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 11661 of 2025

Applicant :- Ghanshyam And 6 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pramod Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State.

¶7

The present 528 B.N.S.S. application has been filed to quash the impugned charge-sheet No. 193 of 2023 dated 15.06.2023 submitted by the Investigating Officer under Sections 147, 452, 323, 352, 354Kha IPC, Police Station- Gulawati, Bulandshar, and stay and quash the further proceedings of Criminal Case No. 6656 of 2023 (State. Vs. Ghanshyam and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 182 of 2023, under Sections 147, 352, 323, 354 Ka IPC, Police Station- Gulawati, Bulandshar, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, DistrictBullandshar so far as the applicant is concerned, as well as Summoning Order dated 13.07.2023 by which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bullandshar has issued summoning against applicants.

¶8

It is alleged in the first information report that informant and applicants family had gone to attend function and some dispute arose there. Subsequently, applicants' side attacked the house of informant with lathi & danda . As a result thereof, injured received grievous injuries.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. Allegations alleged in the first information report are false, baseless and not supported by any cogent evidence. There is old enmity between the parties, therefore, present first information report has been lodged only to harass the applicants. Charge-sheet submitted by the I.O. is not supported by any material evidence to prosecute the applicants in the present case. Instant first information report lodged against the applicants, is liable to be quashed.

¶10

Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the submissions raised by applicants' counsel and submits that submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicants are disputed questions of fact, which cannot be considered and examined at this stage by this Court in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Moreover, prosecution story is supported by medical examination report and statements of witnesses are also supporting the prosecution case.

¶11

Considered the submissions raised by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. From the record, it is apparent that instant 528 B.N.S.S. application has been filed without annexing the medical examination report and this Court vide order dated 17.04.2025 directed the learned A.G.A. to get instructions with regard to medical examination report. Learned A.G.A. has received instructions and supplied the medical examination report, which reveals that injured has received grievous injuries and corroborating the facts narrated in the first information report.

¶12

The grounds taken in the application reveal that many of them relate to disputed question of fact. This Court is of the view that it is well settled that the appreciation of evidence is a function of the trial court. This Court in exercise of power under Section 528 B.N.S.S. cannot assume such jurisdiction and put an end to the process of trial provided under the law. It is also settled by the Apex Court in catena of judgments that the impugned criminal proceeding against the applicants is abuse of the process of the Court and is liable to be quashed by this Court. The power under Section 528 B.N.S.S. at pre-trial stage should not be used in a routine manner but it has to be used sparingly, only in such an appropriate cases, where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the criminal proceedings or where allegations made in First Information Report or charge-sheet and the materials relied in support of same, on taking their face value and accepting in their entirety do not disclose the commission of any offence against the accused. The disputed questions of facts and defence of the accused cannot be taken into consideration at this pre-trial stage.

¶13

In view of the above, in the light of judgment of the Apex Court in the matters of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, Manik B. Vs. Kadapala Sreyes Reddy & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 642, 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 Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 , no ground for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case, is made out which may call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as the same do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.

¶14

The present application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed .

¶15

Order Date :- 22.8.2025 Aditya

¶16

Digitally signed by :- ADITYA KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ghanshyam and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ghanshyam and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases