Allahabad High Court
Shyam Babu And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 1 September, 2025
Author: Deepak Verma
Bench: Deepak Verma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:153225
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 5982 of 2025
Shyam Babu And 2 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Ajay Dubey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A., Ramesh Chandra Upadhyay
Court No. - 72
HON'BLE DEEPAK VERMA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants; learned counsel for the informant; learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge dated 3-7-2024 passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No. 4 Agra in Case No. 4200013 of 2015, arising out of case crime no. 299 of 2014, under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of 1.P.C., P.S.- Etmadpur, District- Agra.
3. Counsel for the applicant submits that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. The framing of charge order dated 03.07.2024 is without considering the evidence produced by the applicant. It is next submits that framing of charge against the applicant is abuse of the process of the court and liable to be set aside. It is next submitted that on perusal of F.I.R. as well statement of witnesses recorded during investigation, no offence under the alleged Section is made out.
4. Learned A.G.A. and counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case and submitted that applicants earlier, challenged the discharge application by filing 482 Application No.16460 of 2024 and the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 06.09.2024 dismissed the application of the applicant. Thereafter, the applicants challenged the order dated 06.09.2024 by filing SLP No. 13553 of 2024 and the Hon. Apex Court vide order dated 04.10.2024 passed the following order:
"1. We have heard Mr. Manoj K Mishra, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners.
2. When the High Court passed the impugned order, the trial court had already proceeded to frame the charge. Once the charge is framed, there is no question of discharge thereafter.
3. In such circumstances, the learned counsel prayed that he may be permitted to withdraw the special leave petition with liberty to take appropriate steps to challenge the order of the trial court framing charge.
4. The special leave petition is disposed of as withdrawn, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case with the aforesaid liberty"
5. Thereafter, the applicants, after framing of charge, filed instant application. Counsel for the informant next submits that after framing of charge, P.W. 1 is being examined by the trial court but the applicants accused persons are not examining the P.W. 1., delaying the trial proceedings.
6. Considered the argument raised by counsel for the parties and perused the record. The order impugned dated 03.07.2024, prima facie, discloses that charge has been framed after hearing the applicants and the applicants have denied the charges and opted to face trial. The trial court has framed the charges in presence of the accused applicants The trial court has found material evidence against the applicant to frame charges under aforesaid sections against the applicant. The trial court, after perusing the entire evidence as well as material evidence collected by the I.O., prima facie found offence against the applicants under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of 1.P.C. and framed the charges. The applicants were heard before the framing of charges. There is no illegality in the order impugned. The order impugned is just and proper.
7. In view of the above, in the light of judgment of the Apex Court in the 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 B.N.S.S.
8. The present application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Deepak Verma,J.)
September 1, 2025
Meenu Singh
