The Allahabad High Court has dismissed an application filed under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), seeking the quashing of a First Information Report (FIR), holding that such an application is not maintainable when the charge sheet and the cognizance order are not placed on record.
Justice Jitendra Kumar Sinha passed the order in the case of Vishwa Bandhu vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others (Application U/S 482 No. 22266 of 2024), delivered on December 3, 2025.
Background of the Case
The applicant, Vishwa Bandhu, approached the High Court seeking to quash FIR No. 192 of 2024, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Meerut, on June 14, 2024. The FIR was lodged under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) following an order by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut, under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
The complainant, the Manager of Navyug Shahkari Avas Samiti, alleged that the applicant, in conspiracy with others, prepared a forged power of attorney and executed a forged sale deed dated September 12, 1988, for a plot originally allotted to one Hareram Dua in 1978. The FIR alleged that no such power of attorney was executed by the original allottee, and the transaction violated the society’s by-laws.
Arguments of the Parties
The Applicant’s Submissions: Mr. Alok Saxena, counsel for the applicant, contended that the lodging of the instant FIR was an abuse of the process of the Court. He argued that a prior FIR (No. 0039 of 2022) had already been lodged on similar facts, and a second FIR for the same offence is barred under the law laid down by the Supreme Court in T.T. Antony vs. State of UP.
The counsel further argued that the dispute was essentially civil in nature, pending before an Arbitrator under the UP Cooperative Societies Act. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court’s judgments in G. Sagar Suri vs. State of U.P. and Paramjeet Batra vs. State of Uttarakhand, arguing that criminal proceedings should be quashed when a civil dispute is given a criminal cloak.
Additionally, citing the Supreme Court judgment in Sheila Sebastian vs. R. Jawaharraj, the counsel argued that the offence of forgery was not made out as the applicant was not the maker of the false document.
The Respondents’ Submissions: Mr. Sunil Kumar Mishra, counsel for Opposite Party No. 2, and Sri B.P. Singh, learned AGA, raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the application. They argued that the applicant had misled the Court and that the alleged power of attorney was a fabricated document.
The respondents contended that the application under Section 528 BNSS (formerly Section 482 CrPC) was not maintainable, citing the Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in Ram Lal Yadav vs. State of UP.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Court focused its analysis on the maintainability of the application under Section 528 BNSS. Justice Sinha referred to the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni vs. State of Maharashtra (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 13424 of 2025 dated 03.09.2025).
Quoting the Supreme Court, the High Court observed:
“So long cognisance of the offence is not taken, a writ or order to quash the FIR/charge-sheet could be issued under Article 226; however, once a judicial order of taking cognisance intervenes, the power under Article 226 though not available to be exercised, power under Section 528, BNSS was available to be exercised to quash not only the FIR/charge-sheet but also the order taking cognisance, provided same is placed on record with the requisite pleadings to assail the same and a strong case for such quashing is set up.”
The Court noted that while the applicant sought to quash the FIR, the prayer made in the application was limited. The Court observed:
“From perusal of the prayers so made in the present application, it is clear that the applicant has simply sought for quashing the FIR and he has not placed the chargesheet as well as the cognizance taken on the chargesheet by the competent Court.”
Decision
Applying the ratio of Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni, the Court held that since the charge sheet and the cognizance order were not placed on record, the FIR could not be quashed by invoking the provisions of Section 528 BNSS.
The Court concluded:
“Since the application is not maintainable, therefore, the merit of the case cannot be gone into by this Court.”
Accordingly, the application was dismissed as not maintainable.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Vishwa Bandhu vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others
- Case Number: Application U/S 482 No. 22266 of 2024
- Bench: Justice Jitendra Kumar Sinha
- Counsel for Applicant: Alok Saxena
- Counsel for Opposite Parties: Ayush Mishra, Sunil Kumar Misra, G.A.
