Dismissed¶12

Navajish v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC24 Apr 2025NA528/4474/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 528 BNSS inherent powers; quashing of cognizance and summoning order dated 21.09.2021; charge sheet dated 28.06.2020; Case Crime No. 76 of 2020; Sections 3, 5, 8 U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act; cow slaughter; PS Garhi Pukhta, District Shamli; Session Trial No. 353 of 2021 (State vs. Israil and others); false implication; extra judicial confession at recovery; prima facie offence; abuse of process of court; ends of justice; applicant Navajish; opposite party State of U.P.; counsel Virendra Pratap Pal; G.A./AGA; application dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Upon perusal of the record, including the FIR and statements of the complainant and other witnesses, a prima facie offence is made out against the applicant. ¶10

Navajish vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶12

Issue for consideration

Whether the cognizance and summoning order dated 21.09.2021, the charge sheet dated 28.06.2020 in Case Crime No. 76 of 2020, and the entire proceedings of Session Trial No. 353 of 2021 so far as they relate to the applicant should be quashed in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS.

¶7

Court's answer

Upon perusal of the record, including the FIR and statements of the complainant and other witnesses, a prima facie offence is made out against the applicant.

¶10

Ratio / Principle

The applicant's assertion of false implication raises factual issues requiring proper adjudication by the trial court on evidence, and cannot be conclusively determined in proceedings under Section 528 BNSS.

¶10

Key takeaways

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.ratio¶11
No sufficient ground was made out to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court under Section 528 BNSS on the facts of this case.ratio¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Saurabh Srivastava, J.; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:64383, decided 24.4.2025) dismissed an application under Section 528 BNSS filed by Navajish seeking quashing of the cognizance and summoning order dated 21.09.2021, the charge sheet dated 28.06.2020 in Case Crime No. 76 of 2020 under Sections 3, 5, 8 of the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act (PS Garhi Pukhta, District Shamli), and the entire proceedings of Session Trial No. 353 of 2021 (State vs. Israil and others) qua the applicant. Held: on perusal of the FIR and witness statements a prima facie offence is made out; the plea of false implication rests on factual questions for trial adjudication and cannot be conclusively determined in a Section 528 BNSS proceeding; inherent powers are exercisable sparingly and with caution, primarily to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice; no sufficient ground was made out to invoke the Court's extraordinary jurisdiction.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:64383

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 4474 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Navajish Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Virendra Pratap Pal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Virendra Pratap Pal, learned counsel for applicant and learned AGA for State.

¶7

Present application has been preferred with the prayer to quash the cognizance and summoning order dated 21.09.2021 and the impugned charge sheet dated 28.06.2020 passed in Case Crime no. 76 of 2020 u/s 3, 5, 8 of the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, PS- Garhi Pukhta, District Shamli, as well as entire proceeding of Session Trial no. 353 of 2021 (State vs. Israil and others) pending in court of learned Additional Session Judge (SC/ST Act), Shamli so far as it relates to applicant only.

¶8

It is contended by learned counsel for applicant that FIR has been lodged by opposite party no. 2 against six accused persons including the applicant regarding commission of alleged offence of cow slaughtering by the accused persons. It was alleged that all the arrested accused persons have stated to the complainant that person alleged to have ran away from spot of incident was applicant. On the said information/extra judicial confession received at the time of recovery, complainant has named the applicant as one of accused in the FIR. There is no material in the case diary which will establish the involvement or presence of applicant on spot. No offence under sections 3, 5, 8 of Cow Slaughter Act is made out against the applicant. Learned trial court also proceeded mechanically and without application of judicial mind, while taking cognizance over the charge sheet dated 28.06.2020 vide impugned order dated 21.09.2021.

¶9

Per contra, learned AGA for State vehemently opposed the prayer sought through the instant application and submitted that name of applicant was roped in the FIR by the complainant on the basis, that two constables who chased him have claimed to identify him and as such impugned proceeding is fully justified.

¶10

After hearing the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, including the FIR, statements of the complainant and other witnesses, it is observed that prima facie offence is made out against the applicant. The assertions of false implication raised by the applicant 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.

¶11

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.

¶12

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

¶13

Order Date :- 24.4.2025 Shaswat

¶14

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

Navajish v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Navajish 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rambeti vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Sonal and Another vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 3 Others

Smt. Kumkum and Another vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Priyanka and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Gauri Maheshwari and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Guddi and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another