Dismissed¶19

Sonu Mishra v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC5 May 2026NA528/49381/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

S.528 BNSS quashing dismissed; charge sheet No. A77 of 2025 dt. 23.02.2025 and cognizance/summoning order dt. 29.04.2025 upheld; Criminal Case No. 17316 of 2025 (State Vs. Sonu Mishra); Case Crime No. 53 of 2025, Ss. 115(2), 352, 351(2) BNS, PS Mubarakpur, Dist. Azamgarh; alleged beating of Pushpa Devi on 04.02.2025; medical report showed no injury; disputed questions of fact not adjudicable under S.528 BNSS; prima facie test per RP Kapoor (AIR 1990 SC 66), Bhajan Lal (1992 SCC (Criminal) 426), P.P. Sharma (1992 SCC (Criminal) 192); Allahabad High Court, Chawan Prakash, J., order dated May 6, 2026.

What did the court decide?

From the perusal of material on record and the facts of the case, at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant. ¶15

Sonu Mishra Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the charge sheet No. A77 of 2025 dated 23.02.2025, the cognizance/summoning order dated 29.04.2025 and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 17316 of 2025 (State Vs. Sonu Mishra), arising out of Case Crime No. 53 of 2025 under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(2) B.N.S., Police Station Mubarakpur, District Azamgarh, are liable to be quashed under Section 528 B.N.S.S.

¶12

Court's answer

From the perusal of material on record and the facts of the case, at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant.

¶15

Ratio / Principle

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 B.N.S.S.

¶15

Key takeaways

At this stage, only a prima facie case is to be considered, in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in RP Kapoor, Bhajan Lal and P.P. Sharma; the disputed defence of the applicant cannot be considered at this stage.ratio¶15
No ground is found to quash the aforementioned case; the prayer for quashing is refused and the application is dismissed.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Quashing — Application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. seeking quashing of charge sheet No. A77 of 2025 dated 23.02.2025, cognizance/summoning order dated 29.04.2025 and entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 17316 of 2025 (State Vs. Sonu Mishra), arising out of Case Crime No. 53 of 2025 under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(2) B.N.S., Police Station Mubarakpur, District Azamgarh, alleging beating of Pushpa Devi (mother of opposite party no. 2) on 04.02.2025; medical report from P.H.C., Azamgarh recorded no injury. Held: submissions raised disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated under Section 528 B.N.S.S.; only a prima facie case falls for consideration in light of RP Kapoor Vs. State of Punjab (AIR 1990 SC 66), State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal (1992 SCC (Criminal) 426) and State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma (1992 SCC (Criminal) 192); disputed defence cannot be considered at this stage; no ground to quash. Application dismissed. (Chawan Prakash, J.)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 49381 of 2025

¶3

Sonu Mishra

¶4

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

¶5

Court No. - 79

¶6

HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J.

¶7

Heard Sri Pradeep Mishra, Advocate holing brief of Sri Shailendra Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Jyoti Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

The applicant filed the present application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. to quash the charge sheet No. A77 of 2025 dated 23.02.2025 and cognizance/summoning order dated 29.04.2025 as well as entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 17316 of 2025 (State Vs. Sonu Mishra), arising out of Case Crime No. 53 of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(2) B.N.S., Police Station Mubarakpur, District Azamgarh, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Azamgarh.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent, he has not committed the alleged offence but he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that opposite party no. 2 lodged a first information report as Case Crime No. 53 of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(2) B.N.S. at Police Station Mubarakpur, District Azamgarh with the allegation that when he was not present at his home, the applicant came to his house and beaten his mother namely Pushpa Devi. Pushpa Devi was medically examined at P.H.C., Azamgarh and according to medical report, no injury was seen. During investigation, statements of opposite party no. 2, injured Pushpa Devi and other witnesses were recorded. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted

¶10

NA528 No. 49381 of 2025

¶11

¶12

and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance. On the basis of allegations made in the first information report, no case is made out against the applicant, therefore, cognizance order as well as charge sheet is liable to be set aside.

¶13

Per contra , learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that opposite party no. 2 lodged a first information report against the applicant regarding the incident dated 04.02.2025 in which mother of the opposite party no. 2 was beaten by the applicant. The injured Pushpa Devi was medically examined at P.H.C., Azamgarh. During investigation, statements of opposite party no. 2, injured and other witnesses were recorded wherein they supported the prosecution version. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the applicant and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance. He further submitted that on the basis of evidence collected during investigation, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant, therefore, application is liable to be dismissed.

¶14

As per facts of the case, a first information report as case Crime No. Case Crime No. 53 of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(2) B.N.S. at Police Station Mubarakpur, District Azamgarh against the applicant with the allegation that when the opposite party no. 2 was not present at his home, the applicant came to his house and beaten his mother namely, Pushpa Devi. The injured was medically examined at P.H.C., Azamgarh. During investigation, statements of opposite party no. 2, injured and other witnesses were recorded. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance.

¶15

From the perusal of material on record and the facts of the case, at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant. All the submissions made at the bar relates to the disputed questions on fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of power conferred under Section 528 B.N.S.S.. At this stage, only prima facie case to be considered in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in the case of RP Kapoor Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1990 SC 66; State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Criminal) 426; and State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Criminal) 192. The disputed defence of the

¶16

NA528 No. 49381 of 2025

¶17

¶18

applicant cannot be considered at this stage.

¶19

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 and the application is dismissed .

¶20

(Chawan Prakash,J.)

¶21

May 6, 2026

¶22

Rmk.

¶23

Digitally signed by :- RAM MURTI KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sonu Mishra v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonu Mishra 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

Abid Husssain and Others Vs State of U.P and Another

Trinetra Filling Station and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Saddam Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Kailash Chand Shukla vs State of U.P. and Another

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

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