Munshi Lal and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 2561 of 2026

¶3

Munshi Lal And Another

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Lakshmi Kant Pandey, Sandeep Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :

¶6

Court No. - 79

¶7

HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Jyoti Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶9

The applicants filed the present application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Case No. 23003 of 2025 arising out of N.C.R. No. 01 of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 352 B.N.S., Police Station Durgaganj, District Bhadohi, impugned charge sheet dated 04.09.2025 as well as summoning order dated 18.10.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.)/Fast Track Court, Bhadohi-Gyanpur, District Sant Ravidas Nagar (Bhadohi), pending in the court of Civil Judge (S.D.)/Fast Track Court, Bhadohi-Gyanpur, District Sant Ravidas Nagar (Bhadohi).

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants have been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of false and frivolous allegation. The applicant no. 2 lodged a first information report as Case Crime No. 0036 of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(2), 118(1) B.N.S., Police Station Durgaganj, District Bhadohi against the opposite party no. 2 and other persons. Thereafter, as a counterblast, opposite party no. 2 lodged an N.C.R. No. 01 of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 352 B.N.S. at Police Station Durgaganj, District Bhadohi against the applicants. He further submitted that opposite party no. 2 was medically examined and according to medical report, injuries were found simple in nature. After investigation, charge sheet was filed against the applicants and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance vide order dated 18.10.2025. He further submitted that on the basis of allegations made in the first information report, no case is made out

¶11

NA528 No. 2561 of 2026

¶12

2

¶13

against the applicants, therefor, cognizance order as well as charge sheet is liable to be set aside.

¶14

Per contra , learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants and submitted that a N.C.R. No. 01 of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 352 B.N.S. at Police Station Durgaganj, District Bhadohi against the applicants. During investigation, statements of opposite party no. 2 and other witnesses were recorded wherein they supported the prosecution version. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the applicants and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance cognizance. He further submitted that on the basis of evidence during investigation, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants, therefore, application is liable to be dismissed.

¶15

As per facts of the case, an N.C.R. No. 01 of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 352 B.N.S. at Police Station Durgaganj, District Bhadohi against the applicants. During investigation, statements of opposite party no. 2 and other witnesses were recorded. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance.

¶16

From the perusal of material on record and the facts of the case, at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants. All the submissions made at the bar relates to the disputed questions on fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of power conferred under Section 528 B.N.S.S.. At this stage, only prima facie case to be considered in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in the case of RP Kapoor Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1990 SC 66; State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Criminal) 426; and State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Criminal) 192 . The disputed defence of the applicants cannot be considered at this stage.

¶17

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any ground to quash the aforementioned case, therefore, the prayer for quashing the same is hereby refused and the application is dismissed.

¶18

May 12, 2026 Rmk.

¶19

(Chawan Prakash,J.)

¶20

Digitally signed by :- RAM MURTI KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Munshi Lal and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Munshi Lal 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

Similar cases

Thaneshwar Prasad Dubey and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashish Dubey Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vinod Kumar Srivastava vs State of U.P. and Another

Haji Bhura Husain and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Jay Shanker and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Vikash Dubey and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another