Dismissed¶21

Satish and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC28 Apr 2026NA528/45933/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of charge sheet and cognizance/summoning order; Section 528 BNSS; Case Crime No. 286 of 2025 under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 352, 351(2), 109, 117(2) BNS, Police Station Akrabad, District Aligarh; alleged marpeet with lathi danda, sword and iron rod; plea of false implication due to Gram Panchayat Election rivalry; injuries not of nature constituting offence under Section 307 I.P.C.; disputed questions of fact not adjudicable; prima facie test; R.P. Kapur; Bhajan Lal; P.P. Sharma; Zandu Pharmaceutical; cognizance order dated 01.11.2025; application dismissed.

What did the court decide?

On a perusal of the 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. ¶16

Satish and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the charge sheet dated 14.10.2025, the cognizance with summoning order dated 01.11.2025 and the entire proceedings of Case No. 1883/2025 (State vs. Satish & others) arising out of Case Crime No. 286/2025 deserve to be quashed under Section 528 BNSS. +1 more

¶9

Court's answer

On a perusal of the 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.

¶16

Ratio / Principle

The submissions made at the Bar relate to disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated by the Court in exercise of power conferred under Section 528 BNSS.

¶16

Key takeaways

At this stage only a prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in R.P. Kapur, Bhajan Lal, P.P. Sharma and Zandu Pharmaceutical; the disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.ratio¶16
No ground is found to quash the aforementioned case; the prayer for quashing is refused and the application under Section 528 BNSS is dismissed.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Chawan Prakash, J.) dismissed an application under Section 528 BNSS seeking quashing of the charge sheet dated 14.10.2025 and the cognizance with summoning order dated 01.11.2025 passed by the Judicial Magistrate-III, Aligarh, together with the entire proceedings of Case No. 1883/2025 (State vs. Satish & others) arising out of Case Crime No. 286/2025 under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 352, 351(2), 109 and 117(2) BNS, Police Station Akrabad, District Aligarh. Held: on the material on record it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants; the submissions raised only disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated in exercise of powers under Section 528 BNSS; at this stage only a prima facie case is to be seen in the light of R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab (AIR 1960 SC 866), State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 SCC (Cr.) 426), State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma (1992 SCC (Cr.) 192) and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Saraful Haq (2005 SCC (Cr.) 283); the disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. Prayer for quashing refused; application dismissed.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 45933 of 2025

¶3

Satish And 5 Others

¶4

	Versus .....Applicant(s)
State of U.P. and Another	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: Gyanendra Prasad Mahant : G.A., Sanjeev Kumar Mishra

¶5

Court No. - 79

¶6

HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J.

¶7

Heard Mr. Gyanendra Prasad Mahant, learned Counsel for applicants, Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for State and perused the record.

¶8

2. This application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed by the applicants with the following prayer:

¶9

" It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant application by quashing the charge sheet dated 14.10.2025 and the cognizance with summoning order dated 01.11.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-III, Aligarh as well as the entire proceedings of Case No. 1883/2025, (State vs. Satish & others) arising out of Case Crime No. 286/2025, under sections 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 352, 351(2), 109, 117(2) BNS, Police Station Akrabad, District Aligarh, presently pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate-III, Aligarh, So that justice be done, otherwise the applicants shall suffer irreparable loss and hard injury ."

¶10

Learned Counsel for the applicants submits that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case due to Gram Panchayat Election rivalry. Opposite party no.2 lodged a First Information Report as Case Crime No. 286 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 352, 351(2), 109 and 117(2) BNS against the applicants at Police Station Akrabad, District Aligarh with an allegation that they have committed marpeet with him using weapon lathi danda, sword and iron rod. Injured Gautam, Durgesh Dixit, Rajkumar and Deepu were medically examined but

¶11

NA528 No. 45933 of 2025

¶12

¶13

the injuries were not of such a nature which constitute an offence under Section 307 I.P.C. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the applicants and learned Magistrate has taken cognizance against them, whereas no prima facie case is made out against the applicants, therefore, the cognizance order as well as entire proceedings of the aforesaid case may be quashed.

¶14

Per contra , learned Counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. have submitted that the applicants have beaten the opposite party no.2 and his family members with iron rods and lathi danda due to which four persons sustained injuries. They have further submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the F.I.R., the statements of the informant and witnesses, injury report and the material collected during the course of investigation, prima facie offence is clearly made out against the applicants and as such, entire proceedings cannot be quashed.

¶15

As per record, opposite party no.2 lodged a First Information Report as Case Crime No. 286 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 352, 351(2), 109 and 117(2) BNS against the applicants at Police Station Akrabad, District Aligarh regarding the incident dated 11.06.2025. Injured Gautam, Durgesh Dixit, Rajkumar and Deepu were medically examined. During investigation, statements of the informant and other witnesses were recorded. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the applicants and learned Magistrate has taken cognizance against them vide order dated 01.11.2025.

¶16

From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants. All the submission made at the Bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of power conferred under Section 528 BNSS. At this stage, only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, 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 . The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this

¶17

NA528 No. 45933 of 2025

¶18

¶19

stage.

¶20

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.

¶21

Accordingly, the application under Section 528 BNSS is dismissed .

¶22

(Chawan Prakash,J.)

¶23

April 29, 2026

¶24

Vijay

¶25

Digitally signed by :- VIJAY KUMAR SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Satish and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish and 5 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

Similar cases

Srikant Pandey Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shameem and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sahab Singh and 5 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Shanker Lal and Another Vs State of U.P.

Arun Kumar Pandey and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Yogendra Singh @ Bauva Singh vs State of U.P. and Another