Rajjan Baba and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

This application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed by the applicants to quash entire proceeding of Criminal Case No.95170 of 2025 (State Vs. Rajjan Baba) arising out of Case Crime No.0072 of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 110 B.N.S., Police Station Hanumant Vihar, District Dakshini Commissionerate, Kanpur Nagar, charge-sheet No.65 dated 26.03.2025 as well as cognizance/ summoning order dated 17.06.2025.

¶12

Brief facts of the case are that an FIR was lodged by opposite party no. 2, Smt. Pyari Devi, at Police Station Hanumant Vihar, District- Dakshini Commissionerate, Kanpur Nagar on 17.03.2025 against the applicants stating that on 14.03.2025 at about 5 p.m. the applicants had attacked her son Jeetu and injured him after assaulting him with iron rod as a result, he sustained grievous head injury and injuries on other part of body. They had also beaten her neighbour Mahesh's son. The condition of her son Jeetu is critical.

¶13

Upon this information, FIR under Section 115(2) and 110 B.N.S was lodged and after investigation charge-sheet was filed in the competent court under the same sections. The concerned court took cognizance of this offence and has summoned the applicants.

¶14

It is submitted on behalf of the applicant that no specific role has been assigned to either of the applicants. The cognizance order dated 17.06.2025 is cryptic and the lower court has not applied its judicial mind while summoning the accused. Therefore, the proceedings were initiated

¶15

NA528 No. 33878 of 2025

¶16

2

¶17

by opposite party no. 2 with mala fide intention and it is nothing but an abuse of process of law.

¶18

Learned A.G.A on behalf of the State has defended the cognizance and summoning order and entire criminal proceeding.

¶19

None appeared on behalf of opposite party no. 2.

¶20

The applicants have filed copy of cognizance and summoning order dated 17.06.2025 and in support of their argument, learned counsel for the applicants has filed a case law Criminal Appeal No. Nil of 2025 (arising out of SLP (criminal) No. 5067 of 2024) M/S J.M. Laboratories and Others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Another, dated 30th January, 2025 Supreme Court.

¶21

I have heard submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶22

Section 528 BNSS, 2023 envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised by the High Court, namely:-

¶23

(i) to give effect to an order under the Code;

¶24

(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court; and

¶25

(iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice.

¶26

It is trite law that the inherent power of the High Court under Section 528 BNSS (corresponding Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure,1973) ought to be exercised to prevent miscarriage of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court or to otherwise secure the ends of justice and the Court possesses wide discretionary powers. Inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the High Court to act according to whim or caprice. The statutory power has to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases. An inherent jurisdiction can be invoked only to prevent abuse of process of court.

¶27

The Supreme Court in the case of Madhu Limaye Vs State of Maharashtra, AIR 1978 SC 47 , has held that the following principles would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction of the High Court:

¶28

"1. Power is not to be resorted to, if there is specific provision in code for redress of grievances of aggrieved party.

¶29

2. It should be exercised sparingly to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice.

¶30

NA528 No. 33878 of 2025

¶31

3

¶32

3. It should not be exercised against the express bar of the law engrafted in any other provision of the code."

¶33

In the landmark case State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335) , a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India considered in detail, the provisions of section 482 and the power of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings or FIR. The Supreme Court summarized the legal position by laying the following guidelines to be followed by High Courts in exercise of their inherent powers to quash a criminal complaint:

¶34

"1. Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

¶35

2. Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

¶36

3. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

¶37

4. Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

¶38

5. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which, no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

¶39

6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or, where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

¶40

7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

¶41

The main ground on behalf of the applicants is that the learned trial court has not applied its judicial mind while taking cognizance and

¶42

NA528 No. 33878 of 2025

¶43

4

¶44

summoned the accused by cryptic order. This is a case based on police report. Chapter XV Section 210 BNSS provides the provision with regard to cognizance of offences by Magistrate, which is as follows:

¶45

"210. (1) Subject to the provisions of this Chapter, any Magistrate of the first class, and any Magistrate of the second class specially empowered in this behalf under subsection (2), may take cognizance of any offence—

¶46

(a) upon receiving a complaint of facts, including any complaint filed by a person authorised under any special law, which constitutes such offence;

¶47

(b) upon a police report (submitted in any mode including electronic mode) of such facts;

¶48

(c) upon information received from any person other than a police officer, or upon his own knowledge, that such offence has been committed.

¶49

(2) The Chief Judicial Magistrate may empower any Magistrate of the second class to take cognizance under sub-section (1) of such offences as are within his competence to inquire into or try."

¶50

Being a case based upon police report, Section 210 (1)(b) would apply in this case. In this regard, perusal of impugned cognizance and summoning order dated 17.06.2025 reveals that the learned trial court has mentioned that the charge-sheet, FIR, case diary and other papers were perused and thereafter, cognizance of the offence was taken and the accused were summoned. Therefore, it clearly reveals that the Magistrate while passing the order of taking cognizance and has applied its judicial mind.

¶51

Beside this, the applicants had remedy to file a revision against the order taking cognizance by the Magistrate and instead of availing such remedy they have come up before this Court for quashing the entire proceedings of this case.

¶52

In view of the above discussion, I do not find any force in contention of learned counsel for the applicants, therefore, this application has no force and is liable to be dismissed.

¶53

Accordingly, this application lacks merit and is dismissed .

¶54

January 12, 2026 AdityaG

¶55

(Sanjiv Kumar,J.)

¶56

Digitally signed by :- ADITYA GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rajjan Baba and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajjan Baba and 3 Others 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

Fareed Ahmad Alias Shareef vs State of U.P. and Another

Jai Batra and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Ghanendra Patel vs State of U.P. and Another

Deepak Kumar Gupta and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Juvenile X and Another vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Pavan Kumar Sonkar and 15 Others vs State of U.P. and Another