Dismissed¶21

Gulam Rasool and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Criminal quashing – Application under Section 528 BNSS

Allahabad HC22 Apr 2026NA528/46777/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 46777 of 2025, Chawan Prakash, J., decided 23.04.2026. Quashing application against charge-sheet No. 104/2025, cognizance and summoning order in Case Crime No. 115 of 2025 under Sections 352, 351(2), 333 BNS, P.S. Kotwali Shahabad, District Rampur. Held: disputed questions of fact not adjudicable under S. 528 BNSS; prima facie test per R.P. Kapur, Bhajan Lal, P.P. Sharma, Zandu Pharmaceutical; disputed defence not considered at this stage; application dismissed.

What did the court decide?

All the submissions made at the bar relate to disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of power conferred under Section 528 BNSS. ¶16

Gulam Rasool 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. - 46777 of 2025

¶3

Gulam Rasool And 2 Others

¶4

Versus .....A	pplicant(s)
State of U.P. and Another ...	..Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ashok Kumar Umesh Pal Singh	Mishra,
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 79

¶6

HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J.

¶7

Heard Mr. Umesh Pal Singh, learned Counsel for applicants and learned A.G.A. for State and perused the record.

¶8

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

¶9

" It respect fully prayed that this is most Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice may graciously be pleased to allow this present application for quashing the impugned charge sheet No. 104/2025 dated 25.05.2025 including cognizance dated 8.9.2025 and summoning order dated 8.10.2025 Criminal case No.1447 of 2025 (State Vs. Ikbal & 2 others) as well as entire proceeding of Case No. 115 of 2025 arising out of case crime No.0115/2025 Under Section 352, 351(2), 333 B.N.S., P.S- Kotwali Shahabad, District Rampur pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Rampur. "

¶10

Learned Counsel for the applicants submits that the opposite party no.2 lodged an F.I.R. as Case Crime No. 115 of 2025 under Sections 352, 351(2) and 333 BNS against the applicants with an allegation that on 09.05.2025 they entered his house, hurled abuses and threatened him for dire consequences. During investigation, statement of opposite party no.2 and other witnesses were recorded. There is material contradiction in

¶11

NA528 No. 46777 of 2025

¶12

¶13

between the statements of opposite party no.2 and the witnesses. The Investigating Officer did not conduct fair and proper investigation and filed a charge-sheet against the applicants under Sections 352, 351(2) and 333 BNS and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance on it on 08.09.2025, whereas no prima facie case is made out against the applicants, therefore, the impugned cognizance/summoning order as well as entire proceedings of the aforesaid case may be quashed.

¶14

Per contra , learned A.G.A. has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the F.I.R., the statements of the informant and witnesses 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 an F.I.R. as Case Crime No. 115 of 2025 under Sections 352, 351(2) and 333 BNS against the applicants with an allegation that on 09.05.2025 they entered his house, hurled abuses and threatened him for dire consequences. During investigation, statement of opposite party no.2 and other witnesses were recorded. The Investigating Officer filed a charge-sheet against the applicants under Sections 352, 351(2) and 333 BNS and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance on it on 08.09.2025.

¶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 applicant. 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

¶17

NA528 No. 46777 of 2025

¶18

¶19

and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 . The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this 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 is dismissed .

¶22

April 23, 2026

¶23

Vijay

¶24

(Chawan Prakash,J.)

¶25

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

Gulam Rasool and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gulam Rasool 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

Rihan and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sohanlal Lodhi and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sonia Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sonia vs State of U.P. and Another

Bhola Shukla Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jaypal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others