Bablu @ Vishal and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 26200 of 2025

¶3

Bablu @ Vishal And 5 Others

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Bindeshwari Prasad, Mahendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 74

¶7

HON'BLE DEEPAK VERMA, J.

¶8

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

¶9

The present 528 B.N.S.S. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 08.01.2025 and cognizance order dated 10.03.2025 as well as entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.457 of 2025 (State Vs. Bablu @ Vishal and others), arising out of Case Crime No.393 of 2024, under Sections 352, 74, 115(2), 191(2), 190, 117(2) B.N.S. and Section 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha), 3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act against the applicant nos.1 to 4 and under Sections 352, 115(2), 191(2), 190, 117(2) of B.N.S. and 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act against the applicant nos.5 and 6, Police Station Shahi, District Bareilly.

¶10

It is alleged in the FIR that the four named accused persons have entered into the shop of the informant and used caste abusive language.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. The instant FIR lodged with malice intention and only to harass the applicants. He further submits that the applicant no.6 lodged FIR against the opposite party no.2, in which I.O. has submitted charge sheet and learned Magistrate has taken cognizance. No offence under the alleged sections is made out.

¶12

Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State vehemently opposed the

¶13

NA528 No. 26200 of 2025

¶14

2

¶15

submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicants and submitted that the cognizable offence against the applicants is made out. The statement and medical examination report of the informant, are supporting the prosecution version. 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.

¶16

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 482 Cr.P.C. application 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 482 Cr.P.C. 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.

¶17

Considering the argument raised by applicant's counsel and perused the record, it is evident that prima facie offence is made out. The trial court has to examine the same. Both the parties lodged F.I.R. against each other. The Apex Court in its judgment passed in the case of Manik B. Vs. Kadapala Sreyes Reddy and another, 2023 Live Law (SC) 642, para 6 and 7 are quoted herein below:-

¶18

" 6. Whether the testimony of the witnesses is trustworthy or not has to be found out from the examination-in-chief and the cross-examination of the witnesses when they stand in the box at the stage of such trial.

¶19

NA528 No. 26200 of 2025

¶20

3

¶21

7. Such an exercise, in our considered view, is not permissible while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C."

¶22

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 B.N.S.S. as the same do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.

¶23

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

¶24

(Deepak Verma,J.)

¶25

October 7, 2025 Mini

¶26

Digitally signed by :- MINI KANAUJIYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Bablu @ Vishal and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bablu @ Vishal and 5 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