Rajesh Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 26137 of 2025

Rajesh Kumar Yadav	.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Pankaj Kumar Rai
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶3

Court No. - 77

¶4

HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

¶5

Heard Sri Pankaj Kumar Rai, learned counsel for applicant and learned AGA for the State.

¶6

Although notice has already been served upon opposite party no.2 personally, but no one appeared on his behalf even in the revised call.

¶7

Present application has been preferred with the prayer to quash the chargesheet dated 11.01.2025 and cognizance/summoning order dated 07.02.2025 along with entire criminal proceedings of Case No.5005 of 2025 (State Vs. Rajesh Kumar Yadav), arising out of Case Crime No. 0008 of 2025, under Sections 352, 351(2) BNS, P.S.- Saraimeer, District Azamgarh, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Azamgarh.

¶8

Learned counsel for applicant argued that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case by opposite party no.2 only to harass him since no offence as alleged, has ever been committed by him. Learned counsel for applicant further contended that applicant lives in Prayagraj and on the date of alleged incident too, he was not present at the spot and in respect of the same, father of the applicant preferred an application before SPRA, Azamgarh for verifying the presence of applicant from CCTV footage as well as from the video which was made at the place of incident, over the said application, SPRA, Azamgarh

¶9

NA528 No. 26137 of 2025

¶10

2

¶11

directed the SHO concerned to collect the said videos and on the basis of the same, complete the investigation. Learned counsel for applicant further submitted that in spite of the said direction, without collecting the said videos, chargesheet was filed against applicant which is illegal. It has also been argued by learned counsel for applicant that applicant is real nephew of opposite party no.2 and the present matter has been arisen out of a civil dispute wherein a suit for partition preferred at the opposite party no.2, is still pending to be decided. Learned counsel for applicant has further submitted that only to make pressure upon applicant, opposite party no.2 implicated him in the present criminal proceedings by way of giving criminal colour to a civil dispute. Learned counsel for applicant further contended that there is no credible evidence of presence of the applicant at the place of incident. Learned counsel for applicant further submitted that there is hardly any evidence against applicant to corroborate hi with the alleged incident. It has also been argued by learned counsel for applicant that without conducting fair 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 abuse of process of law and as such, same may be quashed.

¶12

Per contra, learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer sought through the instant application and rebutted the stands taken up by learned counsel for applicants but did not dispute the facts that in spite of specific direction of SPRA, Azamgarh, without collecting the said videos, chargesheet was filed against applicant.

¶13

Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of the material brought on record, it is evident that the applicant has been implicated in the present case in the backdrop of an admitted civil dispute relating to partition, which is still pending adjudication. The allegations regarding the presence of the applicant at the place of incident, are not supported by any credible evidence. Despite the specific direction of the SPRA, Azamgarh to collect and verify the CCTV footage and video recordings pertaining to the alleged occurrence, the Investigating Officer failed to do so and

¶14

NA528 No. 26137 of 2025

¶15

3

¶16

proceeded to submit the chargesheet in a perfunctory manner whereupon cognizance was taken by learned court concerned on such an incomplete and unfair investigation without due application of judicial mind.

¶17

In view of the abovementioned facts and circumstances and in order to prevent miscarriage of justice, this Court is satisfied that the continuation of the criminal proceedings against applicant, would be wholly unjustified and as such, chargesheet dated 11.01.2025 and cognizance/summoning order dated 07.02.2025 along with entire criminal proceedings of Case No.5005 of 2025 (State Vs. Rajesh Kumar Yadav), arising out of Case Crime No. 0008 of 2025, under Sections 352, 351(2) BNS, P.S.- Saraimeer, District Azamgarh, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Azamgarh, are hereby quashed qua applicant herein.

¶18

Accordingly, the present application stands allowed .

¶19

December 1, 2025 Vivek Kr.

¶20

(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)

¶21

Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rajesh Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Danish and 5 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohit Tripathi vs State of Up and Another

Prahlad Vishwakarma vs State of U.P. and Another

Dr Gama Alias Shakhavat vs State of U.P. and Another

Ankit and 9 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Harsh @ Harsh Payala and Another vs State of U.P. and Another