# Irfan Solanki v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2026) 1 ILRA 17
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-01-30
- **Case number:** Application U/S 528 BNSS. No. 46079 of 2025
- **Bench:** Samit Gopal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/irfan-solanki-v-state-of-u-p-anr-54055
- **Pages:** 13

## Text

_Characters 0–39,684 of 40,469. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39684 for what follows._

1 All. Irfan Solanki Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
17

10. Thus, the applicant shall be provided with the copies of police papers and the documents in
accordance with Section 230 B.N.S.S. within a week. The accused thereafter, shall be at liberty to
move the discharge application in pursuance to the provision of Sections 261 and 262 B.N.S.S.

11. The application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. is accordingly allowed.
----------
(2026) 1 ILRA 17
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.01.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.

Application U/S 528 BNSS. No. 46079 of 2025

Irfan Solanki ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Issue for consideration
Quashing of proceedings at advanced stage of Trial

Headnotes
Uttar Pradesh Gangsters Act, 1986-sec. 3(1)-Application u/s 528 BNSS-to quash the proceeding u/s 3(1)
of Act, 1986-Stage of trial -of cross-examination of P.W.-2 after completion of his examination-in-chief and also
completion of recording of testimony of P.W.-1- facts of the case and the stage of trial not disputed - prima
facie material available against the applicant- Application dismissed. (E-9)

Case Law Cited

List of Acts
1. Uttar Pradesh Gangsters Act, 1986
2. Code of Criminal Procedure
3. Bhartiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

List of Keywords
Sanction, Rule 16(3) of Rules 2021, prima facie material, stage of trial.

Appearances of parties
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mohit Singh, Vineet Vikram
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Samit Gopal, J.)

1. Heard Sri Imran Ullah, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Mohit Singh and Sri Vineet
Vikram, learned counsels for the applicant, Sri Manish Goel, learned Senior Advocate/Additional
Advocate General assisted by Sri Rupak Chaubey, learned AGA-I for the State and perused the
record.
18 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

2. This application under Section 528 B.N.S.S., 2023 has been filed by the applicant Irfan
Solanki with the following prayers:-

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be
pleased to allow the present Criminal Misc. Application and to quash/set-aside the entire
proceedings of S.T. No. 838 of 2023 (State vs. Irfan Solanki and others), Under Section 3(1) of the
Uttar Pradesh Gangsters Act, 1986 pending in the Court of Special Judge MP/MLA/Additional
Sessions Judge, Court No. 08, Kanpur Nagar arising out of Case Crime No.156/2022, Police
Station- Jajmau, District Kanpur Nagar and also to quash the impugned charge sheet dated
27.06.2023 and the impugned cognizance/summoning order dated 21.07.2023 as well as the
impugned order dated 30.08.2025 whereby discharge application of the applicant has been rejected
and the impugned order dated 17.09.2025 whereby charges have been framed against the applicant
Under Section 3(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters Act, 1986.

It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to stay the further
proceedings of S.T. No. 838 of 2023 (State vs. Irfan Solanki and others), Under Section 3(1) of the
Uttar Pradesh Gangsters Act, 1986 pending in the Court of Special Judge MP/MLA/Additional
Sessions Judge, Court No. 08, Kanpur Nagar arising out of Case Crime No.156/2022, Police
Station- Jajmau, District Kanpur Nagar, during the pendency of the present application before this
Hon'ble Court and/or may pass such other and further orders which this Hon'ble Court may deem
fit and proper in the facts & circumstances of the case, otherwise the applicant would suffer an
irreparable loss and injury."

3. This matter was heard on 12.01.2026 and during the course of arguments it was informed
by learned counsel for the applicant that trial in the matter has started in which testimony of P.W.-1
has been recorded and further examination-in-chief of P.W.-2 has also been recorded and it is now
at the stage of his cross-examination. The following order was passed by this Court on the said
date:-

"1. Heard Sri Imran Ullah, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Mohit Singh and Sri
Vineet Vikram, learned counsels for the applicant, Sri Manish Goel, learned Senior
Advocate/Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Roopak Chaubey, learned AGA-I for the
State and perused the record.

2. During the course of arguments, it was informed by learned counsels for the applicant
that the trial in the matter has started, in which the testimony of PW-1 has been recorded and
further the examination-in-chief of PW-2 as also been recorded and is now at the stage of his crossexamination. The same is not disputed by learned counsel for the State.

3. Arguments concluded.

4. Judgement reserved.

4. The facts of the case are as under:-
1 All. Irfan Solanki Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
19

(A) A First Information Report was lodged on 26.12.2022 as Case Crime No.156/2022,
Police Station- Jajmau, District Kanpur Nagar, under Section 3(1) of The Uttar Pradesh Gangsters
and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 by Ashok Kumar Dubey, Incharge Inspector,
Police Station- Jajmau, District Kanpur Nagar against 5 persons namely Irfan Solanki, Rizwan
Solanki, Israil Aatewala, Mohd. Sharif, Shaukat Ali, alleging therein that on routine area round and
inspection he came to know that gang-leader Irfan Solanki S/o Late Haji Mushtak Solanki, r/o
178D & 92D, Defence Colony, Police Station Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar, aged 43 years, member
Rizwan Solanki, S/o Late Haji Mushtak Solanki, r/o 178D&180D, Defence Colony, Jajmau,
Kanpur Nagar, aged 37 years, member Israil (Aatewala) S/o Ismail r/o 99/345, Kanghi Mohal,
Police Station Bajaria Kanpur Nagar aged 46 years, member Mohd. Sharif S/o Late Shabbir Ahmed
r/o 12/471 Gwaltoli, Police Station Gwaltoli, Kanpur Nagar aged 36 years, member Shaukat Ali
S/o Late Hameed r/o 11/26 Shootarganj Police Station Gwaltoli, Kanpur Nagar aged 65 years have
an active gang and together and independently are involved in breach of law and order and are
involved for financial gain in offences under various Chapters of I.P.C. The said gang is an interdistrict gang which is active and on 07.11.2022 with an intention to forcible occupying the plot of a
victim Nazeer Fatima being plot no.181D, Defense Colony, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar, collected
together and involved in the activity of setting it ablaze and threatening her for life, for which Case
Crime No. 127 of 2022, under Sections 436/506 I.P.C. in which later on Sections
147/327/427/386/504/120B I.P.C. were added, was registered in which charge sheet no. A-48/22,
dated 09.12.2022 and charge sheet no. A-48A/22, dated 19.12.2022 have been filed. An active
member of gang Rizwan Solanki is also involved in a case being Case Crime No. 519/17, under
Sections 420/427 I.P.C. and The Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, Police Station-
Gangaghat, District Unnao, on the basis of which he has been identified as a Bhoomafiya. He was
involved in forcibly occupying land of Gram Sabha and selling it off. Mohd. Sharif a member of
gang, is involved in Case Crime No. 30/20, under Sections 406/420/504/506 I.P.C., Police Station
Gwaltoli, in which by committing cheating and forgery and threatening for life he had gained in
terms of money. The case is pending in the court concerned. Israil Aatewala another member of the
gang is involved in Case Crime No.114/19, under Sections 147/452/506/384 I.P.C., Police Station
Bajaria, District Kanpur Nagar, in which after investigation charge sheet has been filed against him.
He is a history-sheetor of Police Station Bajaria, which are annexed along with the gang chart and
they are involved in acts prejudicial to the law and order. They are involved in various criminal
activities of arson, forcibly taking properties into possession, cheating and forgery and other
criminal activities. Due to their criminal activities there is a fear in the public and commotion in the
area. Their living freely is not in the interest of public. No one comes forward for lodging of reports
and giving evidence due to their fear. Their acts make out a case under Section 3(1) of The Uttar
Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986.

(B) A gang chart dated 24.12.2022 was prepared by Assistant Commissioner of Police
(Cantt.), Commissionerate, Kanpur Nagar and forwarded to the superior officers on which
Additional Police Commissioner (East), Kanpur Nagar recommended and forwarded it on
24.12.2022. Commissioner of Police (East), Kanpur Nagar has also accorded his sanction and
forwarded it vide order dated 24.12.2022 after which Commissioner of Police, Comissionerate,
Kanpur Nagar approved it vide his order dated 25.12.2022. As per gang chart the applicant Irfan
Solanki is shown to be involved in Case Crime No. 127 of 2022, under Sections 147, 436, 506,
327, 427, 386, 504, 120B I.P.C., Police Station Jajmau, District Kanpur Nagar in which charge
20 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
sheet is stated to have been forwarded. In so far as the members of the gang are concerned, Rizwan
Solanki, Israil Aatewala and Mohd. Sharif are shown to be involved in two cases and Shaukat Ali is
shown to be involved in one case.

(C) Investigation in the matter concluded and a charge sheet dated 27.6.2023 under
Section 3(1) of The Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, was
filed against Irfan Solanki, Rizwan Solanki, Israil Aatewala, Mohd. Sharif and Shaukat Ali. The
Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 11, MP/MLA, Kanpur Nagar vide order dated 21.7.2023 took
cognizance upon the same and summoned the accused.

(D) An application dated 12.12.2024 claiming discharge was filed by Irfan Solanki and
Rizwan Solanki in the matter. The said application stood rejected vide order dated 30.08.2025. The
Court of Special Judge MP/MLA/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 8, Kanpur Nagar vide order
dated 17.09.2025 framed charge against the accused Irfan Solanki, Rizwan Solanki, Mohd. Israil
Aatewala, Mohd. Sharif, Shaukat Ali, Mursalin Khan @Bholu and Ajjan@Ajaz for the offence
under Section 3(1) of The Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act,
1986. The said charge was read over to the accused and explained to them who denied the same
and claimed to be tried. The trial then started.

(E) It is common ground between learned counsels for the applicant(s) and learned
counsels for the State that trial in the matter has started and testimony of P.W.-1 has been recorded,
after which examination-in-chief of P.W.2 has concluded and the matter is being listed for his
cross-examination.

(F) This application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. thus has been filed and is being pressed
at this stage.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits as under:-

(A) The applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case.

(B) The proceedings against the applicant are totally abuse of process of court.

(C) The applicant is a former MLA representing Sisamau Constituency of Kanpur Nagar
from Samajwadi Party having won elections in the year 2022.

(D) In the case being shown against the applicant in the gang chart being Case Crime No.
127 of 2022, Police Station Jajmau, District Kanpur Nagar, he was convicted by the trial court
concerned vide judgement and order dated 03.06.2024 against which he preferred an appeal before
the High Court being Criminal Appeal No. 6659 of 2024 in which he has been granted bail vide
order dated 14.11.2024 but prayer for stay of conviction was refused by the High Court and then he
has approached the Apex Court for the same through SLP (Crl.) No. 2168 of 2025, in which notice
has been issued and the matter is pending, para 23 of the affidavit in support of this application has
been placed before the Court to buttress the same.
1 All. Irfan Solanki Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
21

(E) Only on account of political vengeance the District Administration on the instance of
political rivals of the applicant have implicated him and his brother in a false case previously being
Case Crime No. 127/22, Police Station Jajmau, District Kanpur Nagar and thereafter in a series of
false cases in continuation and subsequently in the present case under the The Uttar Pradesh
Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 also, para-25 of the affidavit in
support of this application has been placed before the Court to buttress the same.

(F) The applicant although was previously involved in 8 criminal cases but his
implication in all the cases are false. Disclosure and explanation therein is given in para-32 of the
affidavit in support of this application wherein in 04 cases Final Report has been submitted in his
favour, 03 cases have been withdrawn under Section 321 Cr.P.C. and in one case he is on bail. The
said cases are prior to lodging of the present case, para-32 of the affidavit in support of this
application has been placed before the Court to buttress the same.

(G) After the present case on account of political vengeance the District Administration
has implicated him in 10 other criminal cases including the present case and Case Crime No.
127/2022 and in 08 cases he has been granted bail by the courts concerned, disclosure and
explanation is given in para-33 of the affidavit in support of present application u/s 528 BNSS,
2023.

(H) Reliance has been placed heavily on the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of
Vinod Bihari Lal vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another: 2025 INSC 767 and it is submitted that
there is a clear violation of Rules of The Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities
(Prevention) Rules, 2021.

(I) The records do not show that there was any joint meeting between the Commissioner
of Police and Additional Police Commissioner while according approval to the Gang Chart, there
was total non-application of mind by the authority in approving it, the Commissioner of Police has
not accorded sanction in accordance with Rule 16(3) of Rules 2021. There is lack of independent
assessment by the competent authority in forwarding the Gang Chart and there is significant
procedural lapse as approvals have been accorded on a pre-printed format of the Gang Chart.

(J) The present petition thus deserves to be allowed and the prayers as prayed for be
granted.

6. Learned Additional Advocate General for the State of U.P. duly assisted by learned
Additional Government Advocates vehemently opposed the petition, prayers and arguments of
learned counsel for the applicant and submitted as under:-

(A) The present petition has been filed with multiple prayers in it and even it contains the
prayer for quashing of the orders at a very belated stage inasmuch as at present trial is under
progress in which evidence of witnesses is being recorded and thus challenging the summoning
order and the order rejecting application for discharge cannot be considered at such a belated stage.
22 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(B) The charge has been framed against the applicant and other accused and at that stage,
they denied it and claimed to be tried, which is also impugned herein and now at this stage,
challenging the summoning order and the order rejecting the application for discharge is again too
belated.

(C) Satisfaction of the authorities concerned while approving the gang-chart is duly
recorded in the gang-chart and it cannot be said that they acted in a mechanical manner while
approving it.

(D) The Commissioner of Police while finally approving the gang-chart has specifically
made a note of his satisfaction for its approval which itself is evident from the gang-chart. The
same is hand-written in it and thus it cannot be said that approval is on a pre-formatted gang-chart.

(E) The judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Vinod Bihari Lal (Supra) cannot be
followed as a precedent as the F.I.R. therein was lodged on 28.7.2018, the gang-chart was approved
by the District Magistrate concerned on 28.07.2018 but the Rules as are considered in the said
judgement are of the year 2001 and thus the same is not applicable in the present case.

(F) The trial is at an advanced stage and thus at this stage where the evidence of witnesses
is being recorded, interference in a petition whereby challenge is to the summoning order, order of
rejection of discharge application and framing of charge is not in the interest of justice as after
framing of charge the accused can be acquitted but not discharged since testimony of the witnesses
is being recorded. Reliance has been placed on the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of
Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander and another: 2012 (9) SCC 460.

(G) The present petition is thus devoid of any merit and deserves to be dismissed.

7. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident
that this petition under Section 528 B.N.S.S., 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 Cr.P.C.) has been
filed by the applicant- Irfan Solanki with the prayers to quash the proceedings of S.T. No. 838 of
2023 (State vs. Irfan Solanki and others), Under Section 3(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters Act,
1986, arising out of Case Crime No.156/2022, Police Station- Jajmau, District Kanpur Nagar,
pending in the Court of Special Judge MP/MLA/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 08, Kanpur
Nagar, quash the charge sheet dated 27.6.2023, quash the order taking cognizance/summoning
dated 21.7.2023, quash the order dated 30.08.2025 rejecting the discharge application of the
applicant and further to quash the order dated 17.9.2025 framing charge under Section 3(1) of the
Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. At the very outset, the
stage of trial at the present moment is not disputed by learned counsels for the parties being the
stage of cross-examination of P.W.-2 after completion of his examination-in-chief and also
completion of recording of testimony of P.W.-1. The prayers in the present application for quashing
is many folds. The orders taking cognizance and summoning cannot be looked into at this stage for
the purpose of quashing since after the same the application for discharge was filed by the
applicant-accused which stood rejected by the trial court, subsequent to which charge has been
framed against him and co-accused. In so far as the ground of violation of Rules 2021 are
concerned, looking to the facts of the case and the gang-chart it transpires that the Commissioner of
1 All. Irfan Solanki Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
23
Police concerned on 25.12.2022 gave his opinion independently in it while approving the same. It
thus cannot be said that he merely signed on a pre-formatted gang chart while according approval.
The applicant has been convicted in a case by the trial court concerned against which an appeal is
pending before the High Court. This Court in the case of Kunal Chawala vs. State of U.P. and
another: 2023 SCC OnLine All 4606, in para-14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 has held that:-

"14. The Apex Court in the case of Ratilal Bhanji Mithani Vs. State of Maharashtra and
others : (1979) 2 SCC 179 has held that after framing of charge there cannot be a discharge but
only an acquittal can be done on a finding of not guilty turning on the merits of the case. It has been
held as follows :-

"24. At the outset, let us have a look at the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1898, which admittedly governed the pending proceedings in this case. The procedure
for trial of warrant cases by Magistrates is given in Chapter XXI of that Code. The present case was
instituted on a criminal complaint. Section 252 provides that in such a case, the Magistrate shall
proceed to hear the complainant (if any) and take all such evidence, as may be produced, in support
of the prosecution. Sub-section (2) of that Section casts a duty on the Magistrate to ascertain the
names of persons likely to be acquainted with the facts of the case and to be able to give evidence
for the prosecution, and to summon all such persons for evidence. Section 253 indicates when and
in what circumstances an accused may be discharged: It says:

"253. (1) If, upon taking all the evidence referred to in Section 252, and making such
examination (if any) of the accused as the Magistrate thinks necessary, he finds that no case against
the accused has been made out which, if unrebutted, would warrant his conviction, the Magistrate
shall discharge him.

(2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to prevent a Magistrate from discharging the
accused at any previous stage of the case if, for reasons to be recorded by such Magistrate, he
considers the charge to be groundless."

Section 254 indicates when and in what circumstances a charge should be framed. It
reads:

"254. If, when such evidence and examination have been taken and made, or at any
previous stage of the case, the Magistrate is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the
accused has committed an offence triable under this Chapter, which such Magistrate is competent
to try, and which, in his opinion could be adequately punished by him, he shall frame in writing a
charge against the accused.

Section 255 enjoins that the charge shall then be read over and explained to the
accused, and he shall be asked whether he is guilty or has any defence to make. If the accused
pleads guilty, the Magistrate shall record that plea, and may convict him thereon.

25. Section 256 provides that if the accused refuses to plead or does not plead, or claims
to be tried, he shall be required to state at the next hearing whether he wishes to cross-examine any
of the witnesses for the prosecution whose evidence has been taken, and if he says he so wants to
24 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
cross-examine, the witnesses named by him shall be recalled and he will be allowed to further
cross-examine them. "The evidence of any remaining witnesses for the prosecution shall next be
taken" and thereafter the accused shall be called upon to enter upon and produce his defence.

26. Section 257 is not material. Section 258(1) provides that if in any case in which a
charge has been framed the Magistrate finds the accused not guilty, he shall record an order of
acquittal. Sub-section (2) requires, where in any case under this chapter the Magistrate does not
proceed in accordance with the provisions of Section 349 or Section 562, he shall, if he finds the
accused guilty, pass sentence on him in accordance with law.

27. From the scheme of the provisions noticed above it is clear that in a warrant case
instituted otherwise than on a police report, "discharge" or "acquittal" of accused are distinct
concepts applicable to different stages of the proceedings in Court. The legal effect and incidents of
"discharge" and "acquittal" are also different. An order of discharge in a warrant case instituted on
complaint, can be made only after the process has been issued and before the charge is framed.
Section 253(1) shows that as a general rule there can be no order of discharge unless the evidence
of all the prosecution witnesses has been taken and the Magistrate considers for reasons to be
recorded, in the light of the evidence, that no case has been made out. Sub-section (2) which
authorises the Magistrate to discharge the accused at any previous stage of the case if he considers
the charge to be groundless, is an exception to that rule. A discharge without considering the
evidence taken is illegal. If a prima facie case is made out the Magistrate must proceed under
Section 254 and frame charge against the accused. Section 254 shows that a charge can be framed
if after taking evidence or at any previous stage, the Magistrate, thinks that there is ground for
presuming that the accused has committed an offence triable as a warrant case.

28. Once a charge is framed, the Magistrate has no power under Section 227 or any other
provision of the Code to cancel the charge, and reverse the proceedings to the stage of Section 253
and discharge the accused. The trial in a warrant case starts with the framing of charge; prior to it,
the proceedings are only an inquiry. After the framing of the charge if the accused pleads not
guilty, the Magistrate is required to proceed with the trial in the manner provided in Sections 254 to
258 to a logical end. Once a charge is framed in a warrant case, instituted either on complaint or a
police report, the Magistrate has no power under the Code to discharge the accused, and thereafter,
he can either acquit or convict the accused unless he decides to proceed under Section 349 and 562
of the Code of 1898 (which correspond to Sections 325 and 360 of the Code of 1973).

29. Excepting where the prosecution must fail for want of a fundamental defect, such as
want of sanction, an order of acquittal must be based upon a "finding of not guilty" turning on the
merits of the case and the appreciation of evidence at the conclusion of the trial.

30. If after framing charges the Magistrate whimsically, without appraising the evidence
and without permitting the prosecution to produce all its evidence, "discharges" the accused, such
an acquittal, without trial, even if clothed as "discharge", will be illegal. This is precisely what has
happened in the instant case. Here, the Magistrate, by his order dated December 12, 1962, framed
charges against Mithani and two others. Subsequently, when on the disposal of the revision
applications by Gokhale, J., the records were received back he arbitrarily deleted those charges and
1 All. Irfan Solanki Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
25
discharged the accused, without examining the "remaining witnesses" of the prosecution which he
had in the order of framing charges, said, "will be examined after the charge".

(emphasis supplied)

15. The situation is the same in the present matter. After taking cognizance on the
chargesheet, framing of charges, accused not pleading guilty and claiming to be tried, the trial
starting and one witness has been examined whereas the statement of the other prosecution
witnesses is being recorded, the applicant who is facing trial comes up challenging the
cognizance/summoning order dated 28.02.2022 as well as entire proceedings of the trial at such a
belated stage.

16. It has been held by the Apex Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab :
AIR 1960 SC 866; State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others : 1992 Supp (1) SCC
335; State of Bihar Vs. P. P. Sharma : 1992 Supp (1) SCC 222; Trisuns Chemical Industry
Vs. Rajesh Agarwal and Ors. : (1999) 8 SCC 686; M. Krishnan Vs. Vijay Singh & Anr. :
(2001) 8 SCC 645; Zandu Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd. Vs. Mohammd Shariful Haque :
(2005) 1 SCC 122; M. N. Ojha Vs. Alok Kumar Srivastava : (2009) 9 SCC 682; Joseph
Salvaraj A. Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors. : (2011) 7 SCC 59; Arun Bhandari Vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh and Ors. : (2013) 2 SCC 801; Md. Allauddin Khan Vs. State of Bihar : (2019) 6
SCC 107; Anand Kumar Mohatta and Anr. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), Department of Home
and Anr. : (2019) 11 SCC 706; Rajeev Kourav Vs. Balasaheb & others : (2020) 3 SCC 317;
Nallapareddy Sridhar Reddy Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh : (2020) 12 SCC 467, that
exercise of inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
is an exceptional one. Great care should be taken by the High Court before embarking to scrutinise
the complaint/FIR/charge-sheet in deciding whether the rarest of the rare case is made out to scuttle
the prosecution.

17. Further in the case of Priti Saraf & anr. Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & anr. : 2021
SCC Online SC 206 the Apex Court while considering the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has
held as follows:

"23. It being a settled principle of law that to exercise powers under Section 482 CrPC,
the complaint in its entirety shall have to be examined on the basis of the allegation made in the
complaint/FIR/charge-sheet and the High Court at that stage was not under an obligation to go into
the matter or examine its correctness. Whatever appears on the face of the complaint/FIR/chargesheet shall be taken into consideration without any critical examination of the same. The offence
ought to appear ex facie on the complaint/FIR/charge-sheet and other documentary evidence, if
any, on record.

24. The question which is raised for consideration is that in what circumstances and
categories of cases, a criminal proceeding may be quashed either in exercise of the extraordinary
powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, or in the exercise of the inherent
powers of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC. This has often been hotly debated before this
Court and various High Courts. Though in a series of decisions, this question has been answered on
26 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
several occasions by this Court, yet the same still comes up for consideration and is seriously
debated.

25. In this backdrop, the scope and ambit of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court
under Section 482 CrPC has been examined in the judgment of this Court in State of Haryana and
Others Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, (1992 Suppl (1) SCC 335). The relevant para is mentioned
hereunder:-

"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code
under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions
relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under
Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following
categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent
abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be
possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible
guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such
power should be exercised.

(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if
they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any
offence or make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any,
accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police
officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview
of Section 155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence
collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case
against the accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but
constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without
an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and
inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that
there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or
the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and
continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the
concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
1 All. Irfan Solanki Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
27

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the
proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused
and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

26. This Court has clarified the broad contours and parameters in laying down the
guidelines which have to be kept in mind by the High Courts while exercising inherent powers
under Section 482 CrPC. The aforesaid principles laid down by this Court are illustrative and not
exhaustive. Nevertheless, it throws light on the circumstances and the situation which is to be kept
in mind when the High Court exercises its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC.

27. It has been further elucidated recently by this Court in Arnab Manoranjan Goswami
Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, 2020 SCC Online SC 964 where jurisdiction of the High
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 CrPC has been analysed at
great length.

28. It is thus settled that the exercise of inherent power of the High Court is an
extraordinary power which has to be exercised with great care and circumspection before
embarking to scrutinise the complaint/FIR/charge-sheet in deciding whether the case is the rarest of
rare case, to scuttle the prosecution at its inception."

8. In the case of Ramveer Upadhyay Vs. State of U.P. : 2022 SCC Online SC 484 the Apex
Court has held in paragraph nos. 27 and 38 that quashing of a criminal case by exercising
jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be done in exceptional cases only. Paragraphs 27 and
38 are quoted herein:-

"27. Even though, the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.,
to interfere with criminal proceedings is wide, such power has to be exercised with circumspection,
in exceptional cases. Jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C is not to be exercised for the
asking.

*****************************

38. Ends of justice would be better served if valuable time of the Court is spent on
hearing appeals rather than entertaining petitions under Section 482 at an interlocutory stage which
might ultimately result in miscarriage of justice as held in Hamida v. Rashid @ Rasheed and
Others, (2008) 1 SCC 474."

9. Further in the case of Daxaben Vs. State of Gujarat : 2022 SCC Online SC 936 in para
49 the Apex Court has held as under:

"49. In exercise of power under section 482 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 the Court does not
examine the correctness of the allegation in the complaint except in exceptionally rare cases where
it is patently clear that the allegations are frivolous or do not disclose any offence."
28 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

10. Further in so far as the ground relating to political vengeance is concerned, in the case of
Ramveer vs. State of U.P.: 2022 SCC OnLine 484, the Apex Court has held in para- 39 that a
criminal case cannot be quashed on the ground of political vengeance. Para- 39 reads as under:-

"39. In our considered opinion criminal proceedings cannot be nipped in the bud by
exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. only because the complaint has been
lodged by a political rival. It is possible that a false complaint may have been lodged at the
behest of a political opponent. However, such possibility would not justify interference under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceedings. As observed above, the
possibility of retaliation on the part of the petitioners by the acts alleged, after closure of the
earlier criminal case cannot be ruled out. The allegations in the complaint constitute offence
under the Atrocities Act. Whether the allegations are true or untrue, would have to be
decided in the trial. In exercise of power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the Court does not
examine the correctness of the allegations in a complaint except in exceptionally rare cases
where it is patently clear that the allegations are frivolous or do not disclose any offence. The
Complaint Case No.19/2018 is not such a case which should be quashed at the inception
itself without further Trial. The High Court rightly dismissed the application under Section
482 of the Cr.P.C."

(emphasis supplied)

11. The Apex Court in the case of Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani Versus State of Uttar Pradesh
and Another : 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1947 has laid a four-step test for High Courts to follow while
considering petitions for quashing criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. It has been held as under:

"20. The following steps should ordinarily determine the veracity of a prayer for
quashing, raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482
of the Cr.P.C.:"

(i) Step one, whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable,
and indubitable, i.e., the materials is of sterling and impeccable quality?

(ii) Step two, whether the material relied upon by the accused, would rule out the
assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused, i.e., the material is sufficient to
reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint, i.e., the material is such, as
would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as
false.

(iii) Step three, whether the material relied upon by the accused, has not been refuted
by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such, that it cannot be justifiably refuted by
the prosecution/complainant?

(iv) Step four, whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process
of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice?
1 All. Rajendra Vs. State of U.P.
29

If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, judicial conscience of the High
Court should persuade it to quash such criminal - proceedings, in exercise of power vested in it
under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused,
would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well
as, proceedings arising therefrom) specially when, it is clear that the same would not conclude in
the conviction of the accused. [(See:Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor (Criminal Appeal No. 174
of 2013)]

12. The proposition of law, the facts of the case, the stage of trial which is not disputed by
learned counsels for the parties, the prima facie material available against the applicant, the nonfulfillment of the conditions of the four-step test, does not call for this Court to consider it a fit case
for interference and thus the present application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. is dismissed.

13. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
----------
(2026) 1 ILRA 29
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.01.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.
THE HON'BLE DEVENDRA SINGH-I, J.

Jail Appeal No. 80 of 2022

Rajendra ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether the conviction of the appellant under S. 302 IPC recorded by the learned
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Deoband, Saharanpur, is vitiated on account of:
(i) alleged contradictions in the testimony of PW-1,
(ii) absence of motive, and
(iii) non-examination of independent witnesses.

Headnotes
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - S.