# Mohammad Irasad v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2025) 9 ILRA 21
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-09-12
- **Case number:** Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 27620 of 2025
- **Bench:** Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mohammad-irasad-v-state-of-u-p-anr-53889
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Whether the proceedings under Sections 420
and 120-B I.P.C., arising out of a dispute that is
"essentially of a civil nature", and where
"nothing in the FIR or the prosecution papers"
discloses deception or fraudulent inducement,
amount to an "abuse of the process of law" so
as to warrant quashing.

Headnotes
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - SS. 415, 420,
120-B - Cheating - Criminal Procedure -
Application Under Section 528 BNNS -
Quashing Of Proceedings - Where The
Dispute Relates To Title, Authority Of
Vendor, Earlier Sale Deeds, Entries In
Revenue Records And Nature Of Property
- Ingredients Not Made Out - FIR And
Material
Do
Not
Show
Any
"Representation
Much
Less
A
False
Representation"
Or
"Fraudulent
Or
Dishonest Inducement" By Applicant -
Informant Is Not Purchaser; Purchaser
(Kajal) Is A Co-Accused - Civil Dispute
Given Criminal Colour - Continuation Of
Proceedings Where Allegations Disclose
Only A Civil Dispute Constitutes "Abuse Of
The Process Of Law" - Quashing Under
Section 528 BNSS (482 Crpc).
Held: Matter is essentially of a civil nature -
Opposite party No. 2 has wrongly invoked the
jurisdiction - giving a criminal colour to a matter
that is essentially civil - No material to show
"any
representation
much
less
a
false
representation" or "fraudulent inducement" by
the applicant; informant is not purchaser;
purchaser herself is co-accused - Issues
involved - title, authority, subsistence of land -
are triable in a civil suit and not in a criminal
prosecution - No case of cheating under S.420
IPC made out - prosecution is nothing but an
abuse of the process of law - Application
allowed - proceedings in Case and order
quashed. (E-7)

Case Law Cited
V.Y. Jose and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Anr.,
AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 59; Hira Lal Hari Lal
Bhagwati v. CBI, (2003) 5 SCC 257; Vir
Prakash Sharma v. Anil Kumar Agarwal, (2007)
7 SCC 373; Md. Ibrahim and Ors. v. State of
Bihar and Anr., 2010 AIR SCW 405; Dr. Vimla
v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1963 SC 1572;
State of U.P. v. Ranjit Singh, (1999) 2 SCC
617; Rajiv Thapar and Ors. v. Madan Lal
Kapoor, AIR 2013 SC (Supp) 1056.

List of Acts
Bharatiya
Nagarik
Suraksha
Sanhita
(BNSS),2023; Indian Penal Code, 1860; Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973; Indian Contract Act,

## Text

9 All. Mohammad Irasad Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
21

19. Ergo, this court is of the
considered opinion that the order impugned
dated 03-07-2025, does not assail any
illegality or infirmity. Thus, there is no
merit in this application and consequently,
the application is hereby dismissed.

20. The trial court may proceed in
accordance with law.

21. Consigned to record.
---------
(2025) 9 ILRA 21
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.09.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN
MISHRA, J.

Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 27620 of 2025

Mohammad Irasad ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Manoj Kumar Mishra, Rahul Mishra

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Aditya Prasad Mishra, G.A., Vijay Mishra

Issue for Consideration
Whether the proceedings under Sections 420
and 120-B I.P.C., arising out of a dispute that is
"essentially of a civil nature", and where
"nothing in the FIR or the prosecution papers"
discloses deception or fraudulent inducement,
amount to an "abuse of the process of law" so
as to warrant quashing.

Headnotes
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - SS. 415, 420,
120-B - Cheating - Criminal Procedure -
Application Under Section 528 BNNS -
Quashing Of Proceedings - Where The
Dispute Relates To Title, Authority Of
Vendor, Earlier Sale Deeds, Entries In
Revenue Records And Nature Of Property
- Ingredients Not Made Out - FIR And
Material
Do
Not
Show
Any
"Representation
Much
Less
A
False
Representation"
Or
"Fraudulent
Or
Dishonest Inducement" By Applicant -
Informant Is Not Purchaser; Purchaser
(Kajal) Is A Co-Accused - Civil Dispute
Given Criminal Colour - Continuation Of
Proceedings Where Allegations Disclose
Only A Civil Dispute Constitutes "Abuse Of
The Process Of Law" - Quashing Under
Section 528 BNSS (482 Crpc).
Held: Matter is essentially of a civil nature -
Opposite party No. 2 has wrongly invoked the
jurisdiction - giving a criminal colour to a matter
that is essentially civil - No material to show
"any
representation
much
less
a
false
representation" or "fraudulent inducement" by
the applicant; informant is not purchaser;
purchaser herself is co-accused - Issues
involved - title, authority, subsistence of land -
are triable in a civil suit and not in a criminal
prosecution - No case of cheating under S.420
IPC made out - prosecution is nothing but an
abuse of the process of law - Application
allowed - proceedings in Case and order
quashed. (E-7)

Case Law Cited
V.Y. Jose and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Anr.,
AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 59; Hira Lal Hari Lal
Bhagwati v. CBI, (2003) 5 SCC 257; Vir
Prakash Sharma v. Anil Kumar Agarwal, (2007)
7 SCC 373; Md. Ibrahim and Ors. v. State of
Bihar and Anr., 2010 AIR SCW 405; Dr. Vimla
v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1963 SC 1572;
State of U.P. v. Ranjit Singh, (1999) 2 SCC
617; Rajiv Thapar and Ors. v. Madan Lal
Kapoor, AIR 2013 SC (Supp) 1056.

List of Acts
Bharatiya
Nagarik
Suraksha
Sanhita
(BNSS),2023; Indian Penal Code, 1860; Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973; Indian Contract Act,
1872.

List of Keywords
quashing further proceeding; sale deed; Power
of Attorney; civil nature; fraudulent or dishonest
intention; deception; abuse of the process of
law; no legal right or authority; criminal colour;
cheating; representation; inducement.
22 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Case Arising From
Case No. 17927 of 2024 (State vs. Irasad and
Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 64 of
2022, under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC, P.S.
Civil Lines, District Meerut; and order dated
23.10.2024 of the Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Court No. 5, Meerut.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Applicant:
Sri Manoj Kumar Mishra, Sri Rahul Mishra.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Sri Aditya Prasad Mishra, G.A., Sri Vijay Mishra.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ram Manohar
Narayan Mishra, J.)

1. Rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf
of the applicant is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Mishra,
learned counsel for the applicant, Sri
Aditya Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for
the opposite party No.2 and learned A.G.A.
for the State.

3. The pleadings have already been
exchanged between the parties.

4. The instant application under
Section 528 BNSS has been filed by the
applicant for quashing further proceeding
of Case No.17927 of 2024 (State vs. Irasad
and Others), arising out of Case Crime
No.64 of 2022, under Sections 420 and 120
B I.P.C., Police Station Civil Lines, District
Meerut as well as order dated 23.10.2024
passed by the learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Court No.5, Meerut.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant
submits that according to the prosecution
version, the informant, Shahid Ali, lodged
an FIR against the applicant and six others
at Police Station Civil Lines, District
Meerut, on 23.02.2022 with the allegation
that the disputed plot, i.e., Khasra No.
6293/1, area 1142.61 square meters @
1366.57 square yards is situated in Village
Shergadhi, Sai Colony, Tehsil and District
Meerut. It is further alleged that the said
plot was owned by Kanwar, Bhawar Singh,
Bijendra Singh, Satendra Singh, Indraj
Singh and others. Aase and others executed
a sale deed for 1366.57 square yards of
land from Khasra No. 6293/1 in favour of
Siyaram Kasturi Devi Educational Society,
Meerut, through its Secretary, Sudheer
Sharma, on 30.05.2005. The sale deed
further records that, after the previous
transactions, 1366.57 square yards of land
had remained with the vendors. Aase and
others had created a society, namely,
Anusuchit Jati Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti
Ltd. A sale deed was executed by Audesh
Kumar as President of the said society, and
the sale deed also bore the signatures of all
the members of the Samiti. The said deed
was duly registered on 30.05.2005, and
possession of the sold land was handed
over to the purchasers. Subsequently, the
said land was purchased by the informant,
applicant Mohammad Irasad, and others on
15.03.2018 from Siyaram Kasturi Devi
Educational Society. At present, the said
land is in the form of Abadi (residential
area). On 28.03.2018, the purchasers
executed a Power of Attorney in favour of
the informant, which was duly registered
before the Sub-Registrar. The accused
persons were well aware of the said Power
of Attorney. The informant executed
several sale deeds and power of attorney in
respect of the property purchased by the
executors of the power of attorney holder.
However, on 14.06.2019, Bijendra (son of
Aase) and Nand Kishor had executed a sale
deed for 180 square yards in favour of
Irshad, Amit Sharma, and Lakshya Sharma
without any authority. Bijendra and Nand
Kishor had no right in the said property. On
the basis of the sale deed dated 14.06.2019,
9 All. Mohammad Irasad Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
23
the applicant executed a sale deed on
23.10.2020 in favour of Kajal, transferring
90 square yards (75.24 square meters) of
the said property, without any legal right or
authority. Both sale deeds dated 14.06.2019
and 23.10.2020 were executed without any
legal authority. On the basis of said sale
deeds, the accused persons, namely Mohd.
Irshad, Kajal, Bijendra and others, are
threatening the informant. The applicant is
a land grabber, and an FIR has been lodged
against him under Sections 420, 467, 468,
471 and 120-B IPC. However, after
investigation, the police submitted a
charge-sheet against the applicant under
Sections 420 and 120-B of the IPC, and
thereafter, the applicant was summoned by
the court below on 23.10.2024 on the basis
of the said charge-sheet.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant
further submits that no case under Section
420 I.P.C. is made out against the
applicant, as there is no allegation that he
made any representation or played any
deception
upon
the
informant
while
purchasing the land from Bijendra and
others or while selling the same to Kajal. If
any cloud has been created on the title of
Kajal
with
respect
to
the
property
purchased by her from the applicant, she
ought
to
have
approached
the
law
enforcement agency to raise her grievance.
He next submits that, in the rejoinder
affidavit, an extract of the Khatauni for
Fasli years 1429?1434 (from 01.07.2021 to
30.06.2027) has been annexed. In this
extract, Khasra No. 6293/1m, area 0.3100
hectare is equivalent to a total area of
1366.57 square yards is recorded in the
name of Aase, son of Govind. Out of the
said 0.3100 hectare of land, the applicant
had purchased 90 square yards from
Bijendra, son of Aase, and subsequently
transferred the same to Kajal. It is further
submitted that both Aase and Bijendra had
died over the course of time. He next
submits that a civil suit was filed by the
informant in respect of the said dispute,
which was withdrawn with liberty to file
afresh. He also submits that the dispute is
essentially of civil nature, and criminal
prosecution in respect of the said matter
amounts to a gross misuse of the process of
law. Therefore, the impugned charge-sheet
as well as the summoning order are liable
to be quashed.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for
opposite party no. 2 submits that the
applicant has criminal history, which has
been disclosed in the counter-affidavit.
Two criminal cases have been registered
against the applicant i.e. Case Crime No.
114 of 2020, Police Station Lisadi Gate,
District Meerut, under Sections 270, 269,
and 188 I.P.C., at the instance of S.I. Ajay
Sharma during the COVID period and Case
Crime No. 346 of 2024, under Section
318(4) BNS, registered on 20.12.2024 at
the instance of Birendra Kumar pursuant to
the orders of the learned Magistrate. In this
case, the informant has alleged that the
accused, Irshad Ali, took Rs. 13,00,000
from him by practicing deception and
fraud, and with the said amount, purchased
a plot in his own name.

8. In reply to the criminal history
alleged on behalf of opposite party no. 2,
learned counsel for the applicant submits
that the first case was lodged against the
applicant for violation of COVID-19
guidelines, which has been withdrawn by
the Government, and the second case was
still under investigation at the time of filing
the present petition, so its details were not
available. However, both criminal cases
have been duly explained in the rejoinder
affidavit.
24 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

9. Learned counsel for opposite party
No. 2 submits that the applicant is one of
the persons who executed a power of
attorney in favour of the informant. Once
the applicant had executed the power of
attorney, he was not entitled to execute a
sale deed in favour of Kajal for land that
was neither available nor in existence.
After the sale deed dated 30.05.2005
executed by the society in favour of
Siyaram Kasturi Devi Educational Society,
no land remained with the vendors.
Consequently, the subsequent sale deed
executed by Bijendra in favour of the
applicant, as well as the sale deed executed
by the applicant in favour of Kajal, are
fraudulent and devoid of any authority or
legal right. Due to such sale deeds, the
informant has suffered difficulty, as he had
already sold several chunks of the said plot
to other persons, who are now seeking
possession of the property purchased by
them. He lastly after withdrawing the suit
for cancellation of sale deed, due to some
formal defects, informant has filed a fresh
suit for cancellation of sale deed dated
14.06.2019.

10. Learned counsel for the applicant
has placed reliance the judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in V.Y. Jose and Anr vs.
State of Gujarat And Anr reported in
AIR 2009 SC (SUPP) 59, wherein Hon'ble
Court has considered the ingredients of
offence of cheating as defined under
Section 415 I.P.C. and observed that for the
purpose of constituting an offence of
cheating, the complainant is required to
show that the accused had fraudulent or
dishonest intention at the time of making
promise or representation. Even in a case
where allegations are made in regard to
failure on the part of the accused to keep
his promise, in absence of a culpable
intention at the time of making initial
promise being absent, no offence under
Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code can
be said to have been made out. The Hon'ble
Court also observed that under Section 482
Cr.P.C., saves the inherent power of the
court. It serves a salutary purpose viz. a
person should not undergo harassment of
litigation for a number of years although no
case has been made out against him. It is
one thing to say that a case has been made
out for trial and as such the criminal
proceedings should not be quashed but it is
another thing to say that a persons should
undergo a criminal trial despite the fact that
no case has been made out at all. In Hira
Lal Hari Lal Bhagwati vs CBI; (2003) 5
SCC 257, the Hon'ble Court has held that it
is settled law, by a catena of decisions, that
for establishing the offence of cheating, the
complainant is required to show that the
accused
had
fraudulent
or
dishonest
intention at the time of making promise or
representation. From his making failure to
keep promise subsequently, such a culpable
intention right at the beginning that is at the
time when the promise was made cannot be
presumed.

11.
In
another
judgement,
Vir
Prakash
Sharma
vs.
Anil
Kumar
Agarwal; (2007) 7 SCC 373, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held in para-13 that the
ingredients of Section 420 of the Penal
Code, which are as follows:-

"(i) Deception of any persons;

(ii) Fraudulently or dishonestly
inducing any person to deliver any
property;

(iii) To consent that any person
shall retain any property and finally
intentionally inducing that person to do or
9 All. Mohammad Irasad Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
25
omit to do anything which he would not do
or omit."

12. In another judgment relied upon by
the learned counsel for the applicant in Md.
Ibrahim And Ors vs. State of Bihar And
Anr; 2010 AIR SCW 405, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held as under:-

"14. When a sale deed is executed
conveying a property claiming ownership
thereto, it may be possible for the
purchaser under such sale deed, to allege
that the vendor has cheated him by making
a false representation of ownership and
fraudulently induced him to part with the
sale consideration. But in this case the
complaint is not by the purchaser. On the
other hand, the purchaser is made a coaccused. It is not the case of the
complainant that any of the accused tried
to deceive him either by making a false or
misleading representation or by any other
action or omission, nor is it his case that
they offered him any fraudulent or
dishonest
inducement
to deliver
any
property or to consent to the retention
thereof by any person or to intentionally
induce him to do or omit to do anything
which he would not do or omit if he were
not so deceived. Nor did the complainant
allege that the first appellant pretended to
be the complainant while executing the sale
deeds. Therefore, it cannot be said that the
first accused by the act of executing sale
deeds in favour of the second accused or
the second accused by reason of being the
purchaser, or the third, fourth and fifth
accused, by reason of being the witness,
scribe and stamp vendor in regard to the
sale deeds, deceived the complainant in any
manner. As the ingredients of cheating as
stated in section 415 are not found, it
cannot be said that there was an offence
punishable under sections 417, 418, 419 or
420 of the Code.

15. When we say that execution of
a sale deed by a person, purporting to
convey a property which is not his, as his
property, is not making a false document
and therefore not forgery, we should not be
understood as holding that such an act can
never be a criminal offence. If a person
sells a property knowing that it does not
belong to him, and thereby defrauds the
person who purchased the property, the
person defrauded, that is the purchaser,
may complain that the vendor committed
the fraudulent act of cheating. But a third
party who is not the purchaser under the
deed may not be able to make such
complaint. The term `fraud' is not defined
in the Code. The dictionary definition of
`fraud' is "deliberate deception, treachery
or cheating intended to gain advantage".
Section 17 of the Contract Act, 1872
defines `fraud' with reference to a party to
a contract. In Dr. Vimla vs. Delhi
Administration - AIR 1963 SC 1572, this
Court explained the meaning of the
expression `defraud' thus "The expression
"defraud" involves two elements, namely,
deceit and injury to the person deceived.
Injury is something other than economic
loss that is, deprivation of property,
whether movable or immovable, or of
money, and it will include any harm
whatever caused to any person in body,
mind, reputation or such others. In short,
it is a non-economic or non-pecuniary
loss. A benefit or advantage to the
deceiver will almost always cause loss or
detriment to the deceived. Even in those
rare cases where there is a benefit or
advantage to the deceiver, but no
corresponding loss to the deceived, the
second condition is satisfied."
26 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

The above definition was in
essence reiterated in State of UP vs. Ranjit
Singh - 1999 (2) SCC 617: (1999 AIR SCW
863)"

13. In Rajiv Thapar And Ors vs.
Madan Lal Kapoor; AIR 2013 SC
(SUPP) 1056, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
considered the ambit and scope of the
exercise of powers under Section 482
Cr.P.C. In paragraph 23, the Court issued
guidelines for invoking the power vested in
the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,
which are reported as follows:

"23.
Based
on
the
factors
canvassed in the foregoing paragraphs, we
would delineate the following steps to
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
material 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?

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."

14. In the present case, the main
allegation against the applicant is that he
obtained a registered sale deed dated
14.06.2019 from Bijendra Singh for 90
square yards of land from Khasra No. 6293/1,
and subsequently sold the said land to Smt.
Kajal by means of another registered sale
deed dated 30.10.2020. According to the
informant, neither the vendor of the applicant,
late Bijendra Singh, had any legal right or
authority to sell the said land to the applicant,
nor did the applicant derive any valid title
under the sale deed executed by Bijendra
Singh in his favour, as the land in question
did not remain in the share of Bijendra Singh.
It is further alleged that the applicant and the
co-accused have taken benefit of the revenue
records, in which the name of father of
Bijendra Singh continued to appear. Since no
legal title was conveyed to the applicant
through the said sale deed, he had no right to
transfer the land to Smt. Kajal through a
registered sale deed.
9 All. Mohammad Irasad Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
27

15. Counsel for the applicant admitted
that two civil suits were already filed for
annulment of cancellation of sale deed
executed by Bijendra Singh in favour of
applicant and sale deed executed by
applicant in favour of Smt. Kajal. Both the
civil suits had dismissed as withdrawn, but
new civil suits have been filed with
permission of the Court. Counsel for the
applicant admitted that two civil suits had
already been filed seeking annulment and
cancellation of the sale deed executed by
Bijendra Singh in favour of the applicant
and the sale deed executed by the applicant
in favour of Smt. Kajal. Both civil suits
have been dismissed as withdrawn and
fresh civil suits have been filed with the
permission of the Court.

16. Upon thoughtful consideration,
and in light of the legal position laid down
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding
the essential ingredients of the offence of
cheating punishable under Section 420
I.P.C. and its application to the facts of the
present case, as well as the scope of
interference by this Court under Section
482 CrPC, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the matter is essentially of a
civil nature.

17. The opposite party No. 2 has
wrongly invoked the jurisdiction of this
Court under Section 482 CrPC, which
amounts to giving a criminal colour to a
matter that is essentially civil. There is
nothing in the FIR or the prosecution
papers to suggest that the applicant made
any representation much less a false
representation to opposite party No. 2
regarding his ownership of the property in
question, or that he fraudulently induced
him to part with any money or property. It
is also relevant to note that the informant is
not a purchaser of the land. The purchaser,
Smt. Kajal, has also been implicated as an
accused.

18. The crux of the allegation is that
the applicant sold a property, claiming
himself to be the owner, to co-accused Smt.
Kajal, whereas the said property is not in
existence due to earlier sale deeds executed
from
Khasra
No.
6293/1m.
The
complicated questions involved in the
present case are whether the vendor,
Bijendra Singh, whose father's name
appears in the revenue records had the right
to sell his share, if any, in favour of the
applicant, whether the applicant had any
right to execute a subsequent sale deed in
respect of the same portion of land in
favour of co-accused Smt. Kajal, and
whether the informant, who claims to be
the power of attorney holder of the
applicant and other co-sharers of the land,
has any right or interest in the said land. All
these questions are triable in a civil suit and
not in a criminal prosecution.

19. In view of the above discussion
and the legal position emanating from the
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
cited above, no case of cheating punishable
under Section 420 IPC appears to be made
out against the applicant. The matter is
essentially of civil nature and is liable to be
settled on the basis of the evidence of the
parties in civil proceedings.

20. The present prosecution is nothing
but an abuse of the process of law,
therefore, proceedings are liable to be
quashed. Consequently, the application
(under Section 528 of BNSS) is allowed.
The proceedings of Case No.17927 of 2024
(State vs. Irasad and Others), arising out of
Case Crime No.64 of 2022, under Sections
420 and 120 B I.P.C., Police Station Civil
Lines, District Meerut as well as order
28 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
dated 23.10.2024 passed by the learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court
No.5, Meerut are hereby quashed in
respect of applicant.
---------
(2025) 9 ILRA 28
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.09.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.

Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 27980 of 2025

Alok Singh ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Amarnath Tripathi, Narendra Kumar

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to:
"The only issue before this Court in the instant
application is that if without sanction chargesheet has been filed within stipulated period
even for the offences for which sanction was
necessary for cognizance then whether chargesheet can be said to be incomplete charge-sheet
and whether in such scenario an accused can be
released on compulsory bail under Section
167(2) Cr.P.C."

Headnotes
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - SS. 389, 406,
420, 506, 411, 120B - The Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 - S 13 - Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 167(2)
- Default/Compulsory bail - Charge-sheet
filed within stipulated period but without
sanction under S. 13 P.C. Act - whether
incomplete charge-sheet - S. 173(2)
Cr.P.C. does not require sanction order to
accompany police report - S. 173(5)
Cr.P.C. documents do not include sanction
-

Filing
charge-sheet
completes
investigation
-
Sanction
-
obtaining
sanction not part of investigation Sanction
is an enabling provision to prosecute,
which is totally separate from the concept
of
investigation
Default
bail
-
right
extinguishes
once
charge-sheet
filed
within stipulated time Cognizance without
sanction - illegality irrelevant for S. 167(2)
- Ritu Chhabaria - distinguished - Order in
Ashok Kumar Srivastava held per incuriam
for non-consideration of binding Supreme
Court precedents.
Held: Charge-sheet filed within time, even
without sanction, is not incomplete -Default bail
cannot be granted once charge-sheet is filed
within stipulated period - Sanction irrelevant for
determining
completion
of
investigation
-
Cognizance without sanction does not confer
right to default bail - No illegality in the
impugned order - Application stands dismissed
accordingly. (Paras 32,34,35,41,42) (E-7)

Case Law Cited
Sanjay Dutt v. State (1994) 5 SCC 410;
Judgebir Singh @ Jasbir Singh Samra v.
NIA (2023) 17 SCC 48; Narendra Kumar
Amin v. CBI (2015) 3 SCC 417; CBI v. R.S.
Pai (2002) 5 SCC 82; Narayan Rao v. State
of A.P. AIR 1957 SC 737; Suresh Kumar
Bhikamchand Jain v. State of Maharashtra
(2013) 3 SCC 77; K. Veeraswamy v. Union
of India (1991) 3 SCC 655; Ritu Chhabaria
v. Union of India (2024) 12 SCC 116; Ashok
Kumar Srivastava and another Vs. State of U.P.
(Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 21254 of
2025) (Held to be per incuriam )

List of Acts
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Indian
Penal Code, 1860; Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988; Constitution of India.

List of Keywords
Incomplete
charge-sheet,
default
bail/
compulsory bail, indefeasible right, sanction,
cognizance, police report, stipulated period,
fundamental right, per incuriam, investigation,
supplementary charge-sheet.

Case Arising From
Application U/S 528 BNSS
Arising out of Case Crime No. 93 of 2024, P.S.
Kotwali, District Gorakhpur.