Allahabad High Court Dismisses Plea To Quash Charge‑sheet, Holds Prima Facie Cognizable Offence Made Out

A Single‑Judge bench of Justice Sanjiv Kumar heard an application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) filed by three applicants seeking quashment of charge‑sheet No.13 of 2024 and the cognizance order dated 21.03.2024 in Criminal Case No.112 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No.128 of 2023. The challenge related to allegations including outraging modesty (Section 354Kha) and other offences under the Indian Penal Code, and raised the question whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings that, according to the applicants, were mala fide and essentially civil in nature.

The High Court dismissed the Section 528 BNSS petition and declined to interfere with the charge‑sheet or the trial court's cognizance. The court held that the FIR and material collected in investigation prima facie disclosed cognizable offences and that a High Court in proceedings under Section 528 BNSS could not enter into a mini‑trial. The court emphasised that "Inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the High Court to act according to whim or caprice." The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "This Court in proceeding under Section 528 BNSS cannot evaluate the evidence, and form an opinion on the disputed facts raised on behalf of the applicant which is under the domain of the trial court. The effect of contradictions in statements of witnesses, if any, recorded by the Investigating Officer is also for the trial court to decide. Prima facie pendency of civil case also has no effect over this case. Overall, the allegations levelled against the applicants prima facie, discloses commission of cognizable offence and in view of the above, there is no good ground to exercise inherent power of this Court in the instant matter."

Background

The dispute originated from an FIR lodged on 9 August 2023 by Prem Kumar Joel alleging that applicant No.1, who had earlier worked as his driver and whose company had constructed a first‑floor portion of the house under a builder's agreement, refused to vacate a room, forcibly entered the informant’s house on 24 July 2023, misbehaved with the 73‑year‑old informant and with his daughter‑in‑law, and tore her clothes. The police investigated, arrested two persons who were handed over by neighbours, and later filed charge‑sheet No.13 of 2024 under Sections 452, 354Kha, 352, 323, 504, 506 and 448 IPC. The applicants contended that the criminal proceedings were a counterblast to an FIR and a civil suit filed by applicant No.1 and his company, that there were material contradictions in witness statements, and that the dispute was essentially civil and thus the charge‑sheet was based on concocted facts.

The State and the complainant opposed quashment, submitting that a cognizable offence was prima facie made out and that the High Court could not assess or re‑weigh evidence during a Section 528 BNSS petition. The court reviewed the scope of inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS, recited settled principles from Madhu Limaye and the Ch. Bhajan Lal line of authorities governing quashment, and applied them to the facts. The judge found that the FIR's allegations, if taken at face value, disclosed cognizable offences and that the existence of parallel civil proceedings or an FIR by the applicants did not warrant interference. The High Court dismissed the application on 16 March 2026, leaving evaluation of contradictions and disputed facts to the trial court and granting no interim relief or liberty beyond the usual course of trial.

Case Details:
Case No.: APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 28695 of 2025
Case Title: Mohd. Zeeshan Siddiqui and 2 others v. State of U.P. and another
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Arshi Abdy, Syed Mohammad Abbas Abdy, Advocates
For the Respondent(s): Ajad Singh, G.A.; Shad Khan, Advocate; Shailesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate

Source: 2026 CaseBase(ALL) 63