Rishi Kumar and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 43007 of 2025

Rishi Kumar And 3 Others

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

¶5

Court No. - 74

¶6

HON'BLE DEEPAK VERMA, J.

¶7

Heard Sri Sanjay Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State.

¶8

The present 528 BNSS application has been filed to quash the charge sheet no. 373 of 2024 dated 01.09.2024 in Criminal Case No. 53 of 2025 (State Vs. Gaurav and others) u/s 191(2), 76, 352, 115(2), 85 B.N.S. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Gandhipark, District Aligarh as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 21.01.2025 pertaining to Case Crime No. 300 of 2024, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Aligarh.

¶9

It is alleged in the FIR that the marriage of opposite party No.2 was solemnized with son of applicant No.2 in the year 2019, thereafter, applicants were continuously demanding for dowry, when the same was not fulfilled, they thrown out the informant on 18.04.2022, thereafter, on persuasion of some senior persons, parties entered into compromise and informant backed to the applicants on 30.11.2023, subsequently, on 08.07.2024, applicant Nos.3 and 4 physically molested with informant.

¶10

Counsel for the applicants submits that allegation in FIR against the applicants are false and baseless and not supported by any material evidence. Statement of informant/victim, recorded U/s 180 and 183 BNSS by I.O., have not supported the prosecution version and frequently changed her version and medical examination report are also not supported the prosecution case. Applicant No.4 was not present on the

¶11

NA528 No. 43007 of 2025

¶12

2

¶13

spot and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. Proceedings against the applicants are malicious prosecution and only to harass the applicants.

¶14

Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the submission raised by applicants' counsel and submits that allegation alleged in the FIR, prima facie, supported by evidence collected by I.O., moreover, submission in regard to presence of applicant No.4 on the spot, the same cannot be examined at this stage. The statement of victim/informant recorded U/s 180 and 183 BNSS, prima facie, discloses offence against the applicants, hence, applicants are not entitled for relief as prayed.

¶15

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 BNSS 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 BNSS 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.

¶16

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 and another, 2023 Live Law (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

¶17

NA528 No. 43007 of 2025

¶18

3

¶19

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

¶20

Considering the argument raised by applicants' counsel and statement of victim/informant recorded U/s 180 and 183 BNSS, prima facie, discloses offence against the applicants and there is material evidence to prosecute the applicants in the present case. Submission raised by applicants' counsel are disputed questions of fact, which cannot be examined at this stage. There is no illegality or infirmity in the cognizance/summoning order. No interference is warranted.

¶21

The present 528 BNSS application of applicants, namely, Rishi Kumar, Suresh Kumar @ Suresh Chandra, Mukesh Kumar and Rahul , is hereby dismissed with the aforesaid observation.

¶22

However, if the applicants surrender before the concerned court within three weeks from today and apply for bail, the bail application shall be decided expeditiously by the court concerned, in accordance with law.

¶23

For the period of three weeks from today or till the time of surrender of the applicants before the Court below, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against them.

¶24

(Deepak Verma,J.)

¶25

November 13, 2025

¶26

Nitin Verma

¶27

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

Rishi Kumar and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

Rishi Kumar and 3 Others 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravi @ Shivkumar vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Madhur Mohan Saxena vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanjeev Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Santosh Kumar Tiwari vs State of U.P. and Another

Nitesh vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Phool Chandra and 5 Others vs State of U.P. and Another