Dismissed¶17

Chitpal @ Vichitra Pal and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC29 Jan 2026NA528/3533/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 528 BNSS inherent powers; quashing of charge sheet and charge after completion of prosecution evidence; discharge application rejected 16.10.2021; charge framed 24.03.2022; murder trial under Sections 147, 148, 302 IPC, Case Crime No. 40/20, P.S. Daurala, Meerut; rarest of rare standard for exercise of inherent jurisdiction; abuse of process; Kurukshetra University; Bhajan Lal; Som Mittal; Naresh Potteries; Punit Beriwala; application dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The application under Section 528 BNSS is misconceived and liable to be dismissed because the entire prosecution evidence has been recorded; inherent jurisdiction cannot be invoked at this juncture to quash the charge sheet and charge framed on the basis of the depositions of prosecution witnesses. ¶15

Chitpal @ Vichitra Pal and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 3533 of 2026

¶3

Chitpal @ Vichitra Pal And 2 Others

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

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

¶6

Court No. - 78

¶7

HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J.

¶8

Sri Adesh Kumar, learned counsel for accused applicants and learned A.G.A. for State, are present.

¶9

The present application has been moved under Section 528 BNSS by accused applicant with the prayer to quash the charge sheet dated 24.04.2020 and order dated 16.10.2021 as well as charge order dated 24.03.2022 in Case No. 605/20 (State Vs. Chitpal @ Vichitrapal and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 40/20, under Sections 147, 148, 302 IPC, P.S.- Daurala, District- Meerut, which is pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge Court No. 15, Meerut.

¶10

Learned counsel for accused applicants submits that the discharge application has already been rejected by order dated 16.10.2021. He submits that he has not challenged the order rejecting discharge application. It is thereafter that charge has been framed on 24.03.2022. Further submits that entire prosecution witnesses have been recorded. It is at this stage that learned counsel submits that the witnesses produced by the prosecution in their statement does not show inculpatory evidence against the accused applicant that he had committed murder. He therefore, seeks interference of this Court to quash the charge sheet and proceedings of the case.

¶11

There is no point of issuance of notice to opposite party no. 2.

¶12

This Court is of the view that the application is misconceived and liable

¶13

NA528 No. 3533 of 2026

¶14

¶15

to be dismissed because the entire prosecution evidence have been recorded. It is at this juncture that the inherent jurisdiction of the court has been invoked to quash the charge sheet and charge framed on the basis of depositions of the prosecution witnesses.

¶16

The scope and ambit of the powers of the High Court invoking under Section 482 CrPC or 528 BNSS are very wide, but should be exercised with circumspection and in rarest of rare and appropriate cases. This power do not confer arbitrary jurisdiction to act according to whims and caprice and is used to prevent the abuse of process of law and for procuring the ends of justice. This preposition of law is enunciated in the cases of Kurukshetra University Vs. State of Haryana reported in (1997) 4 SCC 451 and the State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp(1) SCC 335 In the case of Som Mittal Vs. Government of Karnataka (2008) 3 SCC 574 , Hon'ble the Supreme Court has given an expression of 'rarest of rare case', while describing the scope of Section 482 CrPC. This view is consistently maintained by Hon'ble the Supreme Court till the present day, which is settled by 'en' number of judgments, latest are Naresh Potteries Vs. Aarti Industries 2025 SCC OnLine SC 18 and Punit Beriwala Vs. State (NCT) of Delhi 2025 SCC OnLine SC 983 .

¶17

The application is accordingly dismissed.

¶18

(Avnish Saxena,J.)

¶19

March 19, 2026

¶20

Sharad/-

¶21

Digitally signed by :- SHARAD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Chitpal @ Vichitra Pal and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chitpal @ Vichitra Pal and 2 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

Rakesh and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Shatrohan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Ramu Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Shafiq @ Babu vs State of U.P. and Another

Rakesh and 7 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Dharmendra Kumar vs State of U.P. and 2 Others