Dismissed

Harendra Pal and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC17 Nov 2025NA528/31361/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court dismissed an application under Section 528 BNSS seeking to quash a 2012 charge sheet. The single-judge bench held that the applicant's approach after 13 years was highly belated without explanation and thus contrary to the requirement of reasonable time, rejecting the prayer solely on grounds of delay.

What the court decided

AI extract

Harendra Pal and 3 Others 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. - 31361 of 2025

¶3

Harendra Pal And 3 Others

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

	Versus
State of U.P. and Another		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Satendra Singh	Kumar, Sudhanshu Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 77

¶7

HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶9

Present application has been preferred with prayer to quash charge sheet dated 8.11.2012 in Case no. 411 of 2013 arising out of Case Crime no. 469 of 2012 (State vs. Pushpendra @ Bachhu Singh and others) under sections 323, 324, 336, 504 IPC, PS- Narkhi, District Firozabad.

¶10

It is contended by learned counsel for applicants that applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case due to mala fide intention and ulterior motive of opposite party no. 2. Applicants have not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR. No offence is made out under sections 323, 324, 336, 504 IPC against applicants. Applicant nos. 1, 2 and 4 are having no criminal history while applicant no. 3 is having criminal history of three cases. Applicants have already been granted bail by learned trial court. Present proceeding are totally abuse of process of law and are liable to be quashed and set aside.

¶11

Per contra, learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer sought through instant application.

¶12

After hearing the rival submissions extended by learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, this Court is of the opinion that at the stage of summoning, the Magistrate is only required to record a prima facie opinion, based on the material on record, and is not expected to hold a mini

¶13

NA528 No. 31361 of 2025

¶14

¶15

trial or to examine the defence of the accused. In judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of S.W. Palanitkar and Others v. State of Bihar and Another; (2002) 1 SCC 241 it was held that the test which was required to be applied was whether there is "sufficient ground for proceeding" and not whether there is "sufficient ground for conviction". In the case of Nupur Talwar v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another; (2012) 11 SCC 465 , it was reiterated that the limited purpose of consideration of material at the stage of issuing process being tentative as distinguished from the actual evidence produced during trial, the test to be applied at the stage was whether the material placed before the Magistrate was "sufficient for proceeding against the accused" and not "sufficient to prove and establish the guilt".

¶16

From perusal of the material on record, at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants. The assertions of false implication raised by the applicants are factual issues that requires proper adjudication by the trial court based on evidence and cannot be conclusively determined in proceedings under Section 528 BNSS. In proceeding u/s 528 BNSS, this Court is not inclined to hold mini-trial.

¶17

Moreover, it transpires that in the present matter, chargesheet was filed in the year 2012 and now the same has been challenged through the instant application after about 13 years without explaining the delay and if the Court fails to take into consideration delay and latches while invoking the powers of the High Court under Section 528 BNSS without any reasonable ground, there would be no end to the litigation. A party cannot approach the High Court under Section 528 BNSS at his whim and caprice merely because no period of limitation in filing the petition under the aforesaid provision is provided. A petition under Section 528 BNSS must be filed within a reasonable time and it should not be vitiated by inordinate delay and latches on the part of applicant.

¶18

Within what time a person should approach the Court under Section 528 BNSS depends upon the facts and circumstances of the case. Reasonable time generally means any time which is not manifestly unreasonable and which is fairly necessary for approaching the Court. Reasonable time would mean a time required by a prudent litigant to approach the Court in the given

¶19

NA528 No. 31361 of 2025

¶20

¶21

facts and circumstances of the case.

¶22

Analyzing the facts of the instant case in the backdrop of aforesaid position, it is absolutely clear that applicant has approached this Court at a highly belated stage i.e. after about 13 years. The applicant after awaking up from deep slumber, approached this Court without any iota of explanation for the delay as per his choice. Thus, it can by no stretch of imagination be stated that the applicant has approached this Court within a reasonable time. The applicant wants this Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS, which, in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court would be reluctant to do. It is well settled that the inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS are to be exercised sparingly and with caution, primarily to prevent abuse of the process of the court or to secure the ends of justice. In the instant case, no sufficient ground have been made out to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 BNSS.

¶23

In view of the foregoing, the application under Section 528 BNSS is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed .

¶24

(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)

¶25

November 17, 2025 Shaswat

¶26

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

Harendra Pal and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Harendra Pal and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jubair and 6 Others vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shakeel and Another vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

Vinod Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Balwant Yadav and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Vikash Sharma Alias Vishal Sharma vs State of U.P. and Another