The Allahabad High Court dismissed an application filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, seeking to quash a charge-sheet and a trial court’s summoning order in a case involving allegations of house trespass, assault, and outraging a woman’s modesty. The Court ruled that evaluating evidence, examining contradictions in witness statements, and determining whether a First Information Report (FIR) is a malicious “counterblast” to a cross-case are matters strictly for the trial court to decide.
Background of the Case
The matter arises from an FIR lodged on August 9, 2023, by a 73-year-old informant, Prem Kumar Joel. According to the prosecution, the principal accused, Mohd. Zeeshan Siddiqui, was the informant’s driver and was permitted by the informant’s wife to temporarily stay in a vacant room of their house. The informant alleged that Siddiqui subsequently refused to vacate the room and began using it improperly.
The FIR alleged that on the afternoon of July 24, 2023, Siddiqui and his associates forcibly entered the informant’s house and misbehaved with him. When the informant’s daughter-in-law intervened to rescue him, the accused allegedly misbehaved with her, outraged her modesty, and tore her clothes. Siddiqui and one companion were captured by neighbours, locked in a room, and subsequently handed over to the police.
Following the investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet against Siddiqui and two others under Sections 354Kha, 452, 352, 323, 504, 506, and 448 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). On March 21, 2024, the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. 21, Allahabad, took cognizance of the charge-sheet and issued a summoning order. The applicants approached the High Court seeking to quash these proceedings.
Arguments of the Parties
Counsel for the applicants argued that the investigation was flawed and pointed to material contradictions in the witness statements. They contended that the dispute was essentially civil in nature, stemming from a builder’s agreement between the informant and Siddiqui’s company, Julex Infra Estate Pvt. Ltd., regarding the construction of a two-story building at Kamla Nehru Road, Prayagraj. The applicants claimed that while the informant occupied the ground floor, Siddiqui operated his office on the first floor until the informant allegedly disconnected his electricity supply out of malice.
The applicants further alleged that it was, in fact, the informant who assaulted Siddiqui on July 24, 2023, robbing him of Rs. 50,000 and damaging CCTV equipment. The applicants had lodged an FIR regarding this incident on August 4, 2023, which also resulted in a charge-sheet. Furthermore, a civil suit for permanent injunction was pending between the parties. The applicants submitted that the present criminal proceedings were a fabricated “counterblast” to their FIR.
In response, the counsel for the opposite party and the learned Additional Government Advocate (A.G.A) for the State argued that the FIR was based on correct facts and that a cognizable offence was clearly made out. They emphasized that exercising jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS to examine the evidence collected during the investigation would amount to conducting a mini-trial, which is impermissible at this stage.
Court’s Analysis
Justice Sanjiv Kumar examined the scope of Section 528 BNSS, noting that it corresponds to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Court observed that inherent powers must be exercised sparingly, with circumspection, and in the rarest of rare cases to prevent abuse of the process of the court or to secure the ends of justice.
To outline the legal framework, the Court relied on the Supreme Court judgments in Madhu Limaye Vs State of Maharashtra (AIR 1978 SC 47) and State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335), which established the guidelines for quashing criminal proceedings.
Applying these principles, the High Court noted that the allegations in the FIR prima facie disclosed the commission of cognizable offences. Addressing the defense regarding cross-FIRs and the pending civil dispute, the Court observed:
“Whether the present case is a counterblast of the FIR lodged by the applicant no. 1 or not, is a matter for the trial court to decide which requires evaluation of evidence and this Court cannot go through all this, in this proceeding, and form an opinion in this regard.”
The Court further clarified its jurisdictional limitations under Section 528 BNSS, stating:
“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.”
Decision
Concluding that the allegations levelled against the applicants prima facie disclosed the commission of a cognizable offence and that disputed questions of fact could not be evaluated in the present proceedings, the High Court found no good ground to exercise its inherent powers. Consequently, the application under Section 528 BNSS was dismissed for lacking merit.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Mohd. Zeeshan Siddiqui and 2 others v. State of U.P. and another
- Case Number: Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 28695 of 2025
- Bench: Justice Sanjiv Kumar
- Date of Order: March 16, 2026
- Counsel for Applicants: S.M.A. Abdy, Arshi Abdy, Syed Mohammad Abbas Abdy, Shad Khan
- Counsel for Opposite Parties: Ajad Singh, Shailesh Kumar Pandey, G.A.
