Dismissed¶16

Suraj Harijan v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC13 May 2026NA528/41867/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court dismisses Section 528 BNSS quashing application challenging chargesheet dated 04.06.2023 and cognizance/summoning order dated 05.09.2023 in rape case under Sections 376, 452, 506 IPC (Case Crime No. 19 of 2023, P.S. Jugail, District Sonbhadra); no illegality or impropriety found in charge-sheet or cognizance order; trial court held to have rightly proceeded.

What did the court decide?

On hearing rival submissions and bare perusal of the record, there is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned charge-sheet and cognizance/summoning order, and the trial court rightly proceeded against the applicant. ¶15

Suraj Harijan 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. - 41867 of 2025

¶3

Suraj Harijan

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

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

¶6

Court No. - 80

¶7

HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State perused the record.

¶9

This application has been filed by the applicant to quash the entire proceeding of Case No. 11244 of 2023 (State vs. Suraj Harijan) arising out of Case Crime No. 19 of 2023, under Sections 376, 452, 506 of I.P.C., Police Station Jugail, District Sonbhadra as well as cognizance order dated 05.09.2023 and chargesheet dated 04.06.2023, pending in the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division)/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonbhadra.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the proceeding initiated against the applicant is illegal and against the material available on record; the material of investigation does not disclose commission of any alleged offences against the applicant and as such the proceedings initiated against the applicant including the impugned charge-sheet and cognizance/summoning order are liable to be quashed by this court. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that initially the F.I.R. was lodged under Sections 452, 354 of I.P.C., but later on the first informant of the present case improved her story and stated that she was subjected to rape by the applicant. The statement of the victim recorded during course of investigation, is an afterthought and the same cannot be believed. The statement of the victim is not corroborated with medical evidence, therefore, the chargesheet as well as cognizance order be

¶11

NA528 No. 41867 of 2025

¶12

¶13

quashed by this Court.

¶14

Per contra, learned AGA for the State vehemently opposed the prayer as made in the application and rebutted the stand taken up by learned counsel for applicant by way of submitting that the averments whatsoever has been raised by learned counsel for applicant is subject matter of trial and submitted that after considering the material available on record, charge-sheet has been submitted against the applicant upon which learned court concerned has rightly taken cognizance and summoned the applicant. It is further submitted that a prima facie offence is made out from perusal of the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and 164 of Cr.P.C., she has categorically stated that she was subjected to forcible rape by the applicant. The enmity is a double-edged sword and on account of enmity, this offence was committed by the applicant. This Court cannot appreciate the evidence at this stage in Application U/S 528 of B.N.S.S. and it is the function of the trial court which will decide the case after appreciation of the evidence. At this stage, this Court is required to see as to whether a prima facie offence is made out against the applicant or not. In the present case, a prima facie offence is made out from perusal of statements of the victim. It is further stated that the impugned order dated 05.09.2023, has been challenged after more than two years and laches have not been properly explained. The order sheet of the learned trial court has not been appended alongwith the present application in order to show current status of the case.

¶15

After hearing rival submissions extended by learned counsel for the parties and by bare perusal of record, there appears to be no illegality and impropriety in the impugned charge-sheet and cognizance/summoning order and as such learned court concerned has rightly proceeded against the applicant.

¶16

In view thereof, the instant application under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. lacks merit and is hereby dismissed .

¶17

(Vivek Kumar Singh,J.)

¶18

May 14, 2026 A.P. Pandey

¶19

Digitally signed by :- ANAND PRAKASH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Suraj Harijan v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suraj Harijan 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

Nafis and 2 Others vs State of Up and Another

Maiser@ Mahsar and Anotehr vs State of Up and Another

Shyam vs State of U.P. and Another

Firoz Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashish Vs State of U.P.

Ashish vs State of U.P.