NA528/48932/2025 of RANJEET SINGH AND 3 OTHERS Vs STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 48932 of 2025 Court No. - 79 HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J. 1. Heard Mr. Vijay Bahadur, learned Counsel holding brief of Mr. Ravindra Kumar, learned Counsel for applicants, learned A.G.A. for State and perused the record. 2. This application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash the cognizance order dated 19.12.2024 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hathras, in Case No. 1033 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No. 159 of 2024, under Sections 147, 120B, 506, 420, 419 and 386 I.P.C. P.S. Mursan, District Hathras as well as the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case. 3. Learned Counsel for the applicants submits that applicant nos. 3 and 4 purchased a land through a registered sale-deed dated 21.06.2024 from the co-accused Pradaman Prasad Singh. The present F.I.R. got registered due to previous enmity. The applicants have no concerned with the alleged offence. As per the CCTV footage, the applicants were not seen at the place of offence which shows that they have no role in the present case. There is a delay of 4 hours in Registration of F.I.R. After registration of F.I.R, statements of information and witnesses were recorded. The investigating Officer, after investigation, filed a charge-sheet against the applicants and the learned Magistrate, on 19.12.2024 has taken cognizance on it , 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. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ravindra Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Ranjeet Singh And 3 Others .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 4. 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.  5. As per record, opposite party no.2 lodged an F.I.R. as Case Crime No. 159 of 2024, under Sections 147, 120B, 506, 420, 419 and 386 I.P.C. at Police Station Mursan, District Hathras  against the applicants. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the applicants under Sections 147, 120B 506, 420, 419 and 386 I.P.C. and the learned Magistrate, on 19.12.2024 has taken cognizance on it. 6. 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 and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 . The disputed defence of the accused 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. 8. Accordingly, the application is dismissed. April 20, 2026 Vijay NA528 No. 48932 of 2025 2 (Chawan Prakash,J.)