Allahabad High Court
NA528/40749/2026 of UMARESH @ NETA AND 3 OTHERS Vs STATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS on 22 September 2026
JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 40749 of 2026 Court No. - 75 HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material brought on record. 2. The present application under Section 528 BNSS has been
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 40749 of 2026
Court No. - 75
HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material brought on record.
2. The present application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed with the prayer to quash the charge sheet dated 09.05.2021, cognizance order dated 11.11.2021 as well as entire proceeding of S.S.T. No. 1326 of 2021 (State Vs. Umaresh alias Neta and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 870 of 2020, under Sections 452, 354, 323, 504, 506, 34 I.P.C. and Section 8 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, Police Station Akbarpur, District Kanpur Dehat, pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 13/ Special Judge, POCSO Act, Kanpur Dehat.
3. The contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purpose of causing harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.
4. At this stage, the argument raised by learned counsel for the applicants involves adjudication of a factual dispute and appraisal of evidence.
5. 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 at this stage. 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. 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 Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Kunvar Singh, Raghuraj Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Umaresh @ Neta And 3 Others .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s)
(Cr.) 283.
6. This Court in exercise of its power under Section 528 BNSS is not required to assess the correctness of the allegations and reliability of evidence. Thus, the prayer for quashing is refused.
7. The present application lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed.
8. Dismissed accordingly, leaving it open to the applicants to recourse other remedy available to them. September 23, 2026 Mustaqeem. NA528 No. 40749 of 2026 2 (Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHD MUSTAQEEM KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad