Dhruv Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:137785

Court No. - 72

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 746 of 2025

Applicant :- Dhruv Kumar And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Jawad Tariq Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Jawad Tariq, learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State.

¶7

The present 528 BNSS application has been filed to quash the quash/set aside the charge sheet No. 0104/2021 dated 31.10.2021 as well as order dated 23.06.2022 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad taking cognizance & summoning the applicants under Sections 457, 380 and 506 of Indian Panel Code, 1860; and further also be framing charges against the applicants in Case No.No.19129/2022 and further also quash the entire proceedings arising out of Case Crime No. 15/2021 (Case No.19129/2022) titled as State Vs Dhruv Kumar & another, P.S. Basai Mohammadpur, District Firozabad, pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad.

¶8

Counsel for the applicants submits that instant FIR has been lodged with malicious intention only to harass the applicants and in counterblast of the report lodged by applicants against opposite party No.2 on 16.02.2021. Allegation in FIR as false and not supported by any material evidence. When applicant registered NCR just one day before lodging the FIR by opposite party No.2 then present FIR registered. Applicant also received injury which demonstrate that present FIR against the applicants has been lodged with malicious intention only to save himself and to prosecute the applicants in that FIR.

¶9

Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the submission raised by applicants' counsel and submits that submission raised by applicants' counsel are disputed question of facts which cannot be considered at this stage. On perusal of FIR, there is material evidence against the applicants, as such, prima facie, offence is made out against the applicants. No interference is warranted.

¶10

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

¶11

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.

¶12

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 of the aforesaid case, is made out which may call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C./ 528 BNSS as the same do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.

¶13

The present 528 BNSS application of applicants, namely, Dhruv Kumar and Omveer, is hereby dismissed with the aforesaid observation.

¶14

Order Date :- 13.8.2025 Nitin Verma

¶15

(Justice Deepak Verma)

¶16

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

Dhruv Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhruv Kumar and Another 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