Dismissed¶15

Tej Pratap Rai v. State of U.P. and Another

Quashing – Section 528 BNSS

Allahabad HC10 Apr 2026NA528/7183/2026

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Tej Pratap Rai v. State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad High Court (Vivek Kumar Singh, J.), Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 7183 of 2026, decided April 20, 2026 — application to quash entire proceeding of Criminal Case No. 11188 of 2025 (CNR No. UPMA-04015626-2025) arising out of Case Crime No. 245 of 2024, Section 376 IPC, PS Doharighat, District Mau; charge-sheet and cognizance/summoning order upheld as free from illegality; FIR lodged on application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C./175(3) BNSS; application dismissed.

What did the court decide?

There is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned charge-sheet and cognizance/summoning order; the court concerned rightly proceeded against the applicant. ¶14

Tej Pratap Rai 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. - 7183 of 2026

¶3

Tej Pratap Rai

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus
State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Kamal Kumar Singh
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 Criminal Case No.11188 of 2025 (CNR No.UPMA-04015626-2025) (State Vs. Tej Pratap) arising out of Case Crime No.245 of 2024, under Section 376 IPC, Police Station Doharighat, District Mau, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mau.

¶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 the FIR was lodged against the applicant on the basis of an application moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C./175(3) BNSS after more than one year and five months. It is alleged in the FIR that the incident had taken place on 29.07.2023, and in respect of the same incident, the victim had entered into a compromise with other persons, namely Anshu Rai and Ajay Rai alias Sonu Rai. General and vague allegations have been levelled against the applicant, and it has come in the inquiry report that no such kind of incident, as alleged by the victim, had ever taken place.

¶11

NA528 No. 7183 of 2026

¶12

¶13

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 the victim has categorically stated in her statement that she was subjected to rape by the applicant. The defence of the applicant cannot be appreciated at this stage. The Court is required to see at this stage whether a prima facie offence is made out from the perusal of the victim’s statement recorded during the course of investigation, and it is clear that a prima facie offence is made out from the perusal of the statements of the victim; therefore, the proceedings, charge-sheet, and cognizance order cannot be quashed at this stage.

¶14

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.

¶15

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

¶16

(Vivek Kumar Singh,J.)

¶17

April 20, 2026 Radhika

¶18

Digitally signed by :- RADHIKA VISHWAKARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Tej Pratap Rai v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tej Pratap Rai 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Raman Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Juvenile X vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Jamshed and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Balendra Yadav @ Balinder Yadav and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Dilshad and 6 Others vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Sachin vs State of U.P. and Another