Allahabad High Court
Case Details
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 5810 of 2025 Balendra Shekhar Dixit State of U.P. and Another Versus .....Applicant(s) .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Atul Tripathi, Preet Pal Singh Rathore : G.A. Court No. - 72 HON'BLE DEEPAK VERMA, J.
Legal Reasoning
disputed question of fact. This Court is of the view that it is well settled that the appreciation of evidence is a function of the trial court. This Court in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C./528 BNSS cannot assume such jurisdiction and put an end to the process of trial provided under the law. It is also settled by the Apex Court in catena of judgments that the impugned criminal proceeding against the applicants is abuse of the process of the Court and is liable to be quashed by this Court. The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C./528 BNSS at pre-trial stage should not be used in a routine manner but it has to be used sparingly, only in such an appropriate cases, where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the criminal proceedings or where allegations made in First Information Report or charge-sheet and the materials relied in support of same, on taking their face value and accepting in their entirety do not disclose the commission of any offence against the accused. The disputed questions of facts and defence of the accused cannot be taken into consideration at this pre-trial stage. 7. In view of the above, in the light of judgment of the Apex Court in the 3 NA528 No. 5810 of 2025 matters of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, Manik B. Vs. Kadapala Sreyes Reddy & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 642, 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,, no ground for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case, is made out which may call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 528 BNSS. 8. 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 applicants. The I.O. has collected material evidence to prosecute the applicants in the present case. The learned Magistrate has rightly summoned the applicants in the aforesaid case. Moreover, contents of FIR as well as other material and suicide note discloses the offence under the aforesaid sections. The contents of FIR as well as statements of the witnesses categorically demonstrate that deceased was mentally tortured by the applicant by using abusive language as well by threatening to kill him. A person commit suicide under extreme pressure and circumstances in which he was suffering. Some persons faced pressure created by others and some of the persons do not tolerate act adopted by the other persons. It is alleged in the FIR that deceased had not been paid sale consideration amount by vendee thereafter constantly demand of money was made by deceased but accused applicant did not pay money but willfully/intentionally insulted and intimidated the deceased. Sensitive and emotional temperament person cannot absorbed the insult and intimidation. The act of insult and intimidation would also aggravate or abet the mental pressure of a person for commission of suicide. The suicide note has been recovered which cannot be examined at this stage, in suicide note averments is made against the applicant. FIR has been lodged, without delay on the same day. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 528 BNSS. 9. The present application under Section 528 BNSS lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. September 18, 2025 I.A.Siddiqui (Deepak Verma,J.) Digitally signed by :- IMRAN AHMAD SIDDIQUI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Arguments
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The present 528 B.N.S.S. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet no. 602 of 2024, dated 14.11.2024 as well as its cognizance order dated 21.11.2024 taken by ACJM 1st, Court No.20, Shahjahanpur in Case No.3515 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No.554 of 2024, under Sections 108, 316(2), 352, 351(3) BNS, Police Station Puwayan, District Shahjahanpur as well as other entire proceedings of the aforesaid case pending in the court of District and Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur. 3. It is alleged in the FIR that informant's father (deceased) sold the property to applicant on 08.07.2024, the sale consideration amount was not paid to the deceased when deceased made demand from applicant for sale consideration amount, he was abused and threatened then deceased committed suicide. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Allegation alleged in the FIR is false, baseless and without support of any cogent evidence. I.O. has not collected any cogent evidence to prosecute the applicant in the present case. On perusal of sale deed, it is apparent that property was sold to applicant after receiving Rs.2,20,000/-. Possession of the said property was handed over to the applicant. He further submits that I.O. has not collected any material evidence that applicant abated or instigated the deceased to commit suicide, there is no averments in this regard. It is alleged in the FIR as well as statement that informant went to take money from the applicant then he 2 NA528 No. 5810 of 2025 was abused and intimidate by the applicant. Contents of FIR as well as statement of witnesses have not disclosed material evidence to prosecute the applicant in the present case. Evidence collected by I.O. i.e. statements, postmortem, inquest are not supporting the prosecution story as such no offence under aforesaid section is made out to implicate in the present case. 5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the submission raised by the counsel for the applicant and submitted that the submissions raised by the counsel for the applicant are disputed questions of facts which cannot be examined, at this stage. Submission of the applicant that no offence under the alleged sections is made out is a matter of trail and on perusal of FIR and other material evidence, it is evident that applicant had pressurized the deceased victim to that extent that he committed suicide. It is evident from FIR as well as statement that when the deceased went to the applicant for taking his money then he was intimidated with abusive language. Suicide note has also been recovered from the possession of the deceased by the I.O. which discloses that applicant after getting sale deed in his favour has not paid money on demand, he was harassed and intimidate and abused by the applicant. 6. The grounds taken in the application reveal that many of them relate to