State of U.P. and Another v. Party

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. This application under Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita ( hereinafter referred to as 'BNSS') has been filed seeking following relief:- "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow the application and be pleased to quash the order dated 03.07.2025, by which discharge application of the applicants has been rejected as well as charge sheet no. 32/2024 dated 03.02.2024 and cognizance order 02.08.2024 (State vs. Anuj Pandey and others) in which the applicant nos. 1, 3 and 5 have been summoned under Sections 34, 323, 504, 427 I.P.C., applicant no.2 has been summoned under Sections 34, 323, 504, 506, 427, 452, 354 I.P.C. and applicant no.4 has been summoned under Sections 34, 323, 504, 427, 452 I.P.C. and entire criminal proceeding in Case No. 22282 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No. 0219 / 2023, under Sections 34, 323, 504, 506, 427, 452, 354 I.P.C. Police Station Shivali, District Kanpur Dehat. It is, further prayed that stay the further proceeding of the order dated 03.07.2025, by which discharge application of the applicants has been rejected as well as charge sheet no. 32/2024 dated 03.02.2024 and cognizance order 02.08.2024 (State vs. Anuj Pandey and others) in which the applicant nos. 1, 3 and 5 has been summoned under Section 34, 323, 504, 427 I.P.C., applicant no.2 has been summoned under 34, 323, 504, 506, 427, 452, 354 I.P.C. and applicant no.4 has been summoned under Section 34, 323, 504, 427, 452 I.P.C. and entire criminal proceeding in Case No. 22282 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 0219/2023, under Section 34, 323, 504, 506, 427, 452, 354 I.P.C. Police Station Shivali, District Kanpur Dehat during pendency of present criminal misc. application before this Hon'ble Court, otherwise, the applicants shall suffer irreparable loss and injury. And/or pass such other and further order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case."

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that there was some dispute between the parties on the issue of pathway and that no incident as alleged by the informant has taken place. The allegations levelled against applicants, are wholly false. The victim lady has not sustained any visible injury and only some complaints of pain were shown. Learned counsel has referred first information report and statement of witnesses, including that of victim lady, and submitted that except applicant no.2 Vijay Mishra, no specific allegation has been made against remaining applicants. It was submitted that no prima-facie case is made out and impugned 2 NA528 No. 28255 of 2025 proceedings are malicious. It is further submitted that in pursuance to order of this Court, applicants have moved an application for discharge, which has been rejected vide impugned order dated 03.07.2025. Learned trial Court has not considered facts of the matter in correct perspective and discharge application has been rejected in an arbitrary manner. It was submitted that impugned order dated 03.07.2025 as well as entire proceedings and charge- sheet are liable to be quashed.

4. Learned AGA has opposed the application and submitted that the discharge application of applicant has been rejected by a reasoned order and all the relevant facts have been discussed by the learned Magistrate. It was submitted that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order.

5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

6. So far the prayer of applicants regarding quashing of entire proceedings, including charge-sheet and summoning order dated 02.08.2024, concerned, the same prayer has already been made by the applicants vide Application 528 BNSS No.4633 of 2025 and the same was decided vide order dated 21.04.2025 and the said prayer was refused. Hence, the instant application of applicants seeking same prayer in this application is not maintainable

7. So far the impugned order dated 03.07.2025 is concerned, by that order the discharge application filed by applicants has been rejected. It is well settled that while considering discharge application, the Court is to exercise its judicial mind to determine whether a case for trial has been made out or not. At this stage, a mini trial cannot be held and the Court can shift and weigh the evidence for limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused is made out or not. Where material placed on record discloses grave suspicion against the accused, which has not been properly explained, the Court will be fully justified in rejecting application for discharge. The Court is not to hold mini trial by marshalling the evidence at this stage.

8. In the instant matter perusal of record shows that the victim lady has made allegations against all the applicants. The version of victim is supported by several witnesses. Statement of victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has not been brought on record. The discharge application of applicants has been rejected by a reasoned order and all relevant facts have been considered. No material illegality or perversity could be shown in the impugned order. Here, it would be pertinent to mention that instead of challenging the said order in revision, this application under Section 528 3 NA528 No. 28255 of 2025 BNSS has been filed. It is well-settled that extra-ordinary powers under Section 528 BNSS can be invoked when there is abuse of the process of court or miscarriage of justice or to give effect an order passed under BNSS. In the instant matter, no such contingency is made out. Thus, the prayer sought by applicants is refused.

9. At this stage, it is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that in pursuance to order of this Court applicants were protected till the disposal of discharge application and that a direction may be made to the court concerned to decide the bail application of applicants expeditiously and protection may be granted till then.

10. In view of aforesaid, it is directed that in case applicants surrender before the court concerned within a period of three weeks from today and apply for bail, their bail application shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with settled law. For a period of three weeks from today or till the applicants surrender before the court concerned, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case.

11. With the aforesaid observations, the application u/s 528 BNSS is disposed of. September 11, 2025 'SP'/- (Raj Beer Singh,J.) SANDEEP PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. This application under Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita ( hereinafter referred to as 'BNSS') has been filed seeking following relief:- "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow the application and be pleased to quash the order dated 03.07.2025, by which discharge application of the applicants has been rejected as well as charge sheet no. 32/2024 dated 03.02.2024 and cognizance order 02.08.2024 (State vs. Anuj Pandey and others) in which the applicant nos. 1, 3 and 5 have been summoned under Sections 34, 323, 504, 427 I.P.C., applicant no.2 has been summoned under Sections 34, 323, 504, 506, 427, 452, 354 I.P.C. and applicant no.4 has been summoned under Sections 34, 323, 504, 427, 452 I.P.C. and entire criminal proceeding in Case No. 22282 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No. 0219 / 2023, under Sections 34, 323, 504, 506, 427, 452, 354 I.P.C. Police Station Shivali, District Kanpur Dehat. It is, further prayed that stay the further proceeding of the order dated 03.07.2025, by which discharge application of the applicants has been rejected as well as charge sheet no. 32/2024 dated 03.02.2024 and cognizance order 02.08.2024 (State vs. Anuj Pandey and others) in which the applicant nos. 1, 3 and 5 has been summoned under Section 34, 323, 504, 427 I.P.C., applicant no.2 has been summoned under 34, 323, 504, 506, 427, 452, 354 I.P.C. and applicant no.4 has been summoned under Section 34, 323, 504, 427, 452 I.P.C. and entire criminal proceeding in Case No. 22282 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 0219/2023, under Section 34, 323, 504, 506, 427, 452, 354 I.P.C. Police Station Shivali, District Kanpur Dehat during pendency of present criminal misc. application before this Hon'ble Court, otherwise, the applicants shall suffer irreparable loss and injury. And/or pass such other and further order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case."

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that there was some dispute between the parties on the issue of pathway and that no incident as alleged by the informant has taken place. The allegations levelled against applicants, are wholly false. The victim lady has not sustained any visible injury and only some complaints of pain were shown. Learned counsel has referred first information report and statement of witnesses, including that of victim lady, and submitted that except applicant no.2 Vijay Mishra, no specific allegation has been made against remaining applicants. It was submitted that no prima-facie case is made out and impugned 2 NA528 No. 28255 of 2025 proceedings are malicious. It is further submitted that in pursuance to order of this Court, applicants have moved an application for discharge, which has been rejected vide impugned order dated 03.07.2025. Learned trial Court has not considered facts of the matter in correct perspective and discharge application has been rejected in an arbitrary manner. It was submitted that impugned order dated 03.07.2025 as well as entire proceedings and charge- sheet are liable to be quashed.

4. Learned AGA has opposed the application and submitted that the discharge application of applicant has been rejected by a reasoned order and all the relevant facts have been discussed by the learned Magistrate. It was submitted that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order.

5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

6. So far the prayer of applicants regarding quashing of entire proceedings, including charge-sheet and summoning order dated 02.08.2024, concerned, the same prayer has already been made by the applicants vide Application 528 BNSS No.4633 of 2025 and the same was decided vide order dated 21.04.2025 and the said prayer was refused. Hence, the instant application of applicants seeking same prayer in this application is not maintainable

7. So far the impugned order dated 03.07.2025 is concerned, by that order the discharge application filed by applicants has been rejected. It is well settled that while considering discharge application, the Court is to exercise its judicial mind to determine whether a case for trial has been made out or not. At this stage, a mini trial cannot be held and the Court can shift and weigh the evidence for limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused is made out or not. Where material placed on record discloses grave suspicion against the accused, which has not been properly explained, the Court will be fully justified in rejecting application for discharge. The Court is not to hold mini trial by marshalling the evidence at this stage.

8. In the instant matter perusal of record shows that the victim lady has made allegations against all the applicants. The version of victim is supported by several witnesses. Statement of victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has not been brought on record. The discharge application of applicants has been rejected by a reasoned order and all relevant facts have been considered. No material illegality or perversity could be shown in the impugned order. Here, it would be pertinent to mention that instead of challenging the said order in revision, this application under Section 528 3 NA528 No. 28255 of 2025 BNSS has been filed. It is well-settled that extra-ordinary powers under Section 528 BNSS can be invoked when there is abuse of the process of court or miscarriage of justice or to give effect an order passed under BNSS. In the instant matter, no such contingency is made out. Thus, the prayer sought by applicants is refused.

9. At this stage, it is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that in pursuance to order of this Court applicants were protected till the disposal of discharge application and that a direction may be made to the court concerned to decide the bail application of applicants expeditiously and protection may be granted till then.

10. In view of aforesaid, it is directed that in case applicants surrender before the court concerned within a period of three weeks from today and apply for bail, their bail application shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with settled law. For a period of three weeks from today or till the applicants surrender before the court concerned, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case.

11. With the aforesaid observations, the application u/s 528 BNSS is disposed of. September 11, 2025 'SP'/- (Raj Beer Singh,J.) SANDEEP PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad