Dismissed¶¶13

Gyan Chand Alias Shilu and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC13 Aug 2025NA528/11750/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 528 BNSS inherent power; quashing of charge sheet dated 20.10.2024 and summoning order dated 01.02.2025; Case No. 58 of 2025; Case Crime No. 343 of 2024; Sections 115(2), 352, 351(2) BNS; Police Station Colonelganj, District Prayagraj; cross-FIRs; counter blast FIR allegation; disputed questions of fact not adjudicable in writ jurisdiction; Bhajan Lal principles applied; dismissal of quashing application; Allahabad High Court 2025; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:139007.

What did the court decide?

From the perusal of the material on record and the facts of the case, at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants; both parties lodged F.I.R.s against each other and received injury, and the learned Magistrate rightly summoned the applicants. ¶¶10

Gyan Chand Alias Shilu and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶13

Issue for consideration

Whether the charge sheet dated 20.10.2024, the summoning order dated 01.02.2025 and the entire criminal proceedings of Case No. 58 of 2025 (State of U.P. vs. Gyan Chand and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 343 of 2024, should be quashed in exercise of the Court's inherent power under Section 528 BNSS. +1 more

¶¶7

Court's answer

¶¶10

Ratio / Principle

All the submissions made at the bar relate to disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 528 BNSS.

¶¶11

Key takeaways

In light of the cited Apex Court judgments (R.P. Kapur; Manik B.; State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal; State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma; Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd.), 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 528 BNSS.ratio¶¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Deepak Verma, J.) dismissed an application under Section 528 BNSS seeking quashing of the charge sheet dated 20.10.2024, the summoning order dated 01.02.2025 and the entire criminal proceedings of Case No. 58 of 2025 (State of U.P. vs. Gyan Chand and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 343 of 2024 under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(2) of B.N.S., Police Station Colonelganj, District-Prayagraj. Observing that both parties had lodged F.I.R.s against each other and received injury, that at that stage it could not be said that no offence was made out against the applicants, and that all submissions at the bar related to disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated under Section 528 BNSS, the Court — relying on R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab (A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866), Manik B. v. Kadapala Sreyes Reddy (2023 LiveLaw (SC) 642), State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 SCC (Cr.) 426), State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma (1992 SCC (Cr.) 192) and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Saraful Haq (2005 SCC (Cr.) 283) — held that no ground for quashing was made out warranting interference in exercise of inherent power, and dismissed the application.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:139007

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 11750 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Gyan Chand Alias Shilu And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anoop Kumar Dubey,Raghuvansh Chandra,Surabhi Chandra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants; learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The present 528 BNSS application has been filed to quash the Charge Sheet dated 20.10.2024; summoning order dated 01.02.2025 as well as entire criminal proceedings of Case No. 58 of 2025 (State of U.P. vs. Gyan Chand and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 343 of 2024, under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(2) of B.N.S., Police Station Colonelganj, District-Prayagraj.

¶8

Counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants lodged F.I.R. against opposite party no. 2 and in counter blast instant F.I.R. has been lodged with malice intention only to harass the applicants. The F.I.R. allegation is not supported by any evidence. The Investigating Officer has submitted charge sheet without collecting material evidence and learned Magistrate without applying judicial mind summoned the applicants. He further submits that no prosecution could proceed against the applicants, in such circumstances.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case and submitted that submission raised by counsel for the applicants is based on factual dispute. The trial court has to examine the same. Moreover, at this stage, it cannot be ascertained who is aggressor and instant F.I.R. is counter blast and this Court under Section 528 BNSS has no power to examine the factual dispute of the matter.

¶10

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 applicants. Both the parties lodged F.I.R. against each other and received injury. The learned Magistrate has

¶11

rightly summoned the applicants in the aforesaid case. 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.

¶12

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 528 BNSS.

¶13

The present application 528 BNSS lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed .

¶14

Order Date :- 14.8.2025 Meenu Singh

¶15

Digitally signed by :- MEENU SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Gyan Chand Alias Shilu and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gyan Chand Alias Shilu and 2 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