# Mohd. Zeeshan Siddiqui & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2026) 3 ILRA 1046
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-03-16
- **Case number:** Application U/S 528 BNSS. No. 28695 of 2025
- **Bench:** Sanjiv Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mohd-zeeshan-siddiqui-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-54861
- **Pages:** 5

## Text

1046 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
10. Prima facie, the consent of the victim was obtained for committing rape on false
promise of marriage. The awareness of the victim about the marriage of accused, is a question to be
tried.

11. The scope of ambit of the powers of the High Court invoking under Section 482 CrPC
or 528 BNSS are very wide, but should be exercised with circumspection and in rarest of rare and
appropriate cases. This power do not confer arbitrary jurisdiction to act according to whims and
caprice and is used to prevent the abuse of process of law and for procuring the ends of justice.
This preposition of law is enunciated in the cases of Kurukshetra University Vs. State of
Haryana2 (1977) 4 SCC 451 and the State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal3. In the case of Som Mittal
Vs. Government of Karnataka4, Hon'ble the Supreme Court has given an expression of 'rarest of
rare case', while describing the scope of Section 482 CrPC. This view is consistently maintained by
Hon'ble the Supreme Court till the present day, which is settled by 'en' number of judgments, latest
are Naresh Potteries Vs. Aarti Industries5 and Punit Beriwala Vs. State (NCT) of Delhi6.

12. In view of the above, the Application under Section 528 BNSS is devoid of merit and
accordingly dismissed.
----------
(2026) 3 ILRA 1046
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.03.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANJIV KUMAR, J.

Application U/S 528 BNSS. No. 28695 of 2025

Mohd. Zeeshan Siddiqui & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether the criminal proceedings initiated against the applicants under Section 528 BNSS deserve to be
quashed on the ground that the dispute is essentially civil in nature and the FIR is a counterblast to the
applicants' own FIR ?

HEADNOTES
Criminal Law - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section - 528 - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections - 323, 354-Kha, 352, 448,
452, 504, 506:- Application under Section 528 BNSS - for quashing of charge-sheet and summoning order
- FIR lodged alleging forceful entry, assault, and outraging modesty - investigation conducted - statements
recorded - charge-sheet filed - cognizance taken - trial initiated - another connected case - counter FIR
lodged by applicant no. 1 for the same date of incident - charge-sheet filed therein - civil suit also pending -
applicants pleaded that dispute is civil in nature and FIR is counterblast, contradictions in witness statements
- Court finds that, FIR discloses prima facie cognizable offence, evaluation of evidence lies within trial court's
domain - inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS to be exercised sparingly, not for disputed facts - held,
3 All. Mohd. Zeeshan Siddiqui & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1047
pendency of civil case does not nullify criminal proceedings - hence, application dismissed - proceedings to
continue before trial court.
Application dismissed. (E-11)
CASE LAW CITED
Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1978 SC 47.
State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335.

LIST OF ACTS
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

LIST OF KEYWORDS
Application under section 528 - Quashing of proceedings - inherent jurisdiction - counterblast FIR - civil
dispute - agreement - cognizable offence - abuse of process - ends of justice - dismissed.

CASE ARISING FROM
Criminal Case No. 112 of 2024 (State vs. Mohd. Zeeshan Siddiqui & Others), arising out of Case Crime No.
128 of 2023, Police Station Kotwali Commissionerate, District Prayagraj.

APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
Counsel for Appellant(s): Shri S.M.A. Abdy.
Counsel for Respondent(s): Ajad Singh and the learned A.G.A.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sanjiv Kumar, J.)

1. Heard Shri S.M.A Abdy, learned Counsel for the applicants, Shri Ajad Singh, learned
Counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A for the State and perused the material on
record.

2. This application under Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short
B.N.S.S.) has been filed by the applicants to quash impugned charge-sheet No.13 of 2024 dated
20.02.2024 and cognizance/ summoning order dated 21.03.2024 passed by Incharge Civil Judge
(J.D.), Court No. 21, Allahabad in Criminal Case No.112 of 2024 (State Vs. Mohd. Zeeshan
Siddiqui and Others) arising out of Case Crime No.128 of 2023, against applicant No. 1 under
Sections 354Kha, 452, 352, 323, 504, 506 and 448 I.P.C. and against applicant nos. 2 and 3 under
Sections 452, 352, 323, 504, 506 and 448 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Commissionerate, District
Prayagraj.

3. Brief facts giving rise to this application are that opposite party no. 2 Prem Kumar Joel
lodged an FIR on 9.8.2023 stating that the applicant no.1 was his driver and upon request, his wife
permitted him to stay in a vacant room of his house for some period. Thereafter, he refused to
vacate the room upon being asked, and started using the room in wrong way. The informant is 73
years old person. On 24.07.2023 at noon, the applicant and others entered in his house, misbehaved
with him and when his daughter-in-law came for his rescue, she was also misbehaved and her
clothes were torned. Mohd. Zeeshan Siddiqui and his one companion was captured by neighbours
and locked in a room, police was informed and they were handed over to the police and the rest of
his companions fled away. He had submitted an application the same day in Police Station-
Kotwali. Upon this information, FIR was lodged and investigation was carried out and after
investigation charge-sheet was filed against the applicants.
1048 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
4. It is submitted on behalf of the applicants that the investigation was not conducted properly. There
are material contradictions in statements of witnesses. Even the alleged robbery of Rs. 5,000/- from
informants daughter-in-law was not found correct. In fact there was a builders agreement between the first
informant and the applicant no. 1 with regard to the House No. 18/9 Kamla Nehru Road, Tehsil- Sadar,
Prayagraj, and in view of terms and conditions of said agreement, second party Julex Infra Estate Pvt. Ltd.
Through Director Mohd. Zeeshan Siddiqui constructed two storied building over the land and thereafter the
ground floor was occupied by Pramod Kumar Joel, and the first floor went to the builder. Thereafter,
applicant no. 1 started his office at first floor and got separate electricity connection, which lasted for six
years. Everything was smooth, however, the alleged owner with mala fide intention got the said electricity
connection dis-connected.

5. In fact, on 24.07.2023 at about 11.30 a.m. maarpeet was committed by informant with applicant
no. 1 and others as well as he was robbed of Rs.50,000/- cash and his CCTV cameras and DVRs were also
damaged and taken away. In this regard, applicant had lodged an FIR on 04.08.2023 against the first
informant and his son and 10 unknown persons and after investigation charge-sheet has been filed in the
competent court. The Julex Infra Estate Pvt. Ltd. Through Director Mohd. Zeeshan Siddiqui has also filed a
Civil Suit No. 1096 of 2023 for Permanent Injunction in the competent court. It is submitted that in view of
the above facts it is clear that the present criminal proceedings against the applicants are counterblast to the
FIR lodged by applicant no. 1 against opposite party no. 2 and his son. The dispute is essentially civil in
nature and civil suit is pending between the parties. The FIR was lodged on concocted and false facts,
therefore, the entire proceeding deserves to be quashed.

6. On the other hand, learned Counsel for opposite party no. 2 has submitted that the applicants had
committed the offence and in this regard the FIR was lodged on correct facts. After investigation chargesheet has been filed. It is also submitted that in proceeding under Section 528 BNSS this Court cannot
examine the evidence collected during investigation as it would amount to holding a mini trial. A cognizable
offence is made out and so this application deserves to be dismissed.

7. Learned A.G.A has defended the impugned order and entire criminal proceedings.

8. Section 528 BNSS, 2023 envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction
may be exercised by the High Court,,namely, (i) to give effect to an order under the Code; (ii) to prevent
abuse of the process of court; and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. It is trite law that the inherent
power of the High Court under Section 528 BNSS (corresponding Section 482 Code of Criminal
Procedure,1973) ought to be exercised to prevent miscarriage of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process
of the Court or to otherwise secure the ends of justice and the Court possesses wide discretionary powers.
Inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the High Court to act according to whim or caprice.
The statutory power has to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases. An
inherent jurisdiction can be invoked only to prevent abuse of process of court.

9. The Supreme Court in the case of Madhu Limaye Vs State of Maharashtra, AIR 1978
SC 47, has held that the following principles would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction of
the High Court:
3 All. Mohd. Zeeshan Siddiqui & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1049
 "1. Power is not to be resorted to, if there is specific provision in code for redress of
grievances of aggrieved party.

 2. It should be exercised sparingly to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise
to secure ends of justice.

 3. It should not be exercised against the express bar of the law engrafted in any other
provision of the code."

10. In the landmark case State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335), a twojudge bench of the Supreme Court of India considered in detail, the provisions of section 482 and the power
of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings or FIR. The Supreme Court summarized the legal position
by laying the following guidelines to be followed by High Courts in exercise of their inherent powers to
quash a criminal complaint:

 "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 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.

 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."

11. In view of the above legal position, as well as submissions of both the parties and material on
record, if we look into the present case then admittedly, FIR was lodged against the applicants and unknown
1050 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
persons. The applicants are named in the FIR and from the contents of the FIR, prima facie, cognizable
offence is made out and it is alleged that they entered into the house of the informant forcefully and misbehaved with him and when his daughter-in-law came for rescue then they mis-behaved with her also and
outraged her modesty, and tore her clothes. The Investigating Officer has recorded statements of informant
and the victim and thereafter, after collecting the evidence has filed charge-sheet under Sections- 452,
354(kha), 352, 323, 504, 448 and 506 IPC before the competent court. The concerned court has taken
cognizance of the offence.

12. It is submitted on behalf of learned counsel for the applicants that the dispute between both the
parties are civil in nature as there was a builders agreement between the first informant and the applicant
no.1 for construction of the disputed house. It is also submitted that there are material contradictions in the
statements of witnesses recorded by the IO during investigation which raises serious doubt over the
prosecution case.

13. Admittedly, for an incident of the same date, the applicant no. 1 has also filed an FIR and in that
case also charge-sheet has been filed. Therefore, both parties have lodged FIR against each other for offence
of the same date, with different versions. 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.

14. 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. Overall, the
allegations levelled against the applicants prima facie, discloses commission of cognizable offence and in
view of the above, there is no good ground to exercise inherent power of this Court in the instant matter.

15. Accordingly, this application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. lacks merit and is accordingly,
dismissed.
----------
(2026) 3 ILRA 1050
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.03.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 34871 of 2024

Rohit Upadhyay ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION