NA528/46539/2025 of MOHD. ABU OBAIDA MANSOORI Vs STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 46539 of 2025 Court No. - 79 HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J. 1. Heard Sri Mazhar Ullah, learned counsel for the applicant,  Sri Kamal Dev Rai, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Anas Mahboob, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and perused the record. 2. The applicant filed the present application under Section 528 B.N.S. to quash the impugned charge sheet dated 12.07.2022 alontgwilth impugned cognizance order dated 09.05.2023 as well as entire criminal proceeding of Case No. 1158 of 2023 (State Vs. Mohd. Abu Obaida Ansari), arising out of Case Crime No. 126 of 2022, under Sections 323, 504, 427 I.P.C., Police Station Karely, District Allahabad, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 4, Allahabad.  3. 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 due to family dispute. Opposite party no. 2 lodged a first information report as Case Crime No. 126 of 2022, under Sections 323, 147 I.P.C. at Police Station Karely, District Allahabad just to create pressure upon the applicant. The first information report was lodged after five days of the occurrence but there is no plausible explanation of delay in lodging the first information report. There is no injury report to corroborate the prosecution version and there is no evidence to prove the allegations made in the first information report. Statements of opposite party no. 2 and other witnesses were recorded. After investigation, charge sheet was filed under Sections 323, 504, 427 and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance. As per evidence, collected during investigation, no prima facie case is made out Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Gaurav Pandey, Mazhar Ullah Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Anas Mahboob, G.A. Mohd. Abu Obaida Mansoori .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) against the applicant and the learned Magistrate committed illegality in taking cognizance, therefore, cognizance order and charge sheet are liable to be set aside. 4. Per contra , learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that a first information report was registered against the applicant. During investigation, statements of opposite party no. 2 and other witnesses were recorded wherein they supported the prosecution version. After investigation, charge sheet was filed against the applicant and the learned Magistrate took cognizance against him. 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. 5. As per facts of the case, a first information report as Case Crime No. 126 of 2022, under Sections 323, 147 I.P.C. at Police Station Karely, District Allahabad was lodged against the applicant. Statements of opposite party no. 2 and other witnesses were recorded. After investigation, charge sheet was filed against the applicant under Sections 323, 504, 427 and the learned Magistrate took cognizance against him. 6. 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 applicant cannot be considered at this stage. 7. 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. May 1, 2026 Rmk. NA528 No. 46539 of 2025 2 (Chawan Prakash,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAM MURTI KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad