M/S K.G.N. Enterprises vs State Of U.P. And Another
- Neutral2026:AHC:103993
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A High Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS cannot appreciate, examine, or re-evaluate the deposition and evidence adduced before the trial court, and must refrain from interfering in proceedings that are at an advanced stage merely because prosecution witnesses have not supported the prosecution case or because the accused raises a defence. The power to quash criminal proceedings under Section 528 BNSS is to be exercised sparingly and only in appropriate cases where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar to the institution or continuance of the proceedings, or where the allegations in the First Information Report or charge-sheet, taken at face value and accepted in their entirety, do not disclose the commission of any offence; disputed questions of fact and the defence of the accused cannot be considered at the pre-trial stage for the purpose of quashing proceedings.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.
2. The present 528 BNSS application has been filed to quash the impugned summoning order dated 07.04.2021 passed by the learned Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Room No. 08, Kanpur Nagar in Complaint Case No. 39787/2021 (M/s G.R. International Vs. M/s. K.G.N. Enterprises) as well as the entire proceeding of the Complaint Case No. 39787/2021 ( M /s G.R. International Vs. M/s. K.G.N. Enterprises), under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act, P.S. Sisamau, District-Kanpur Nagar, pending before the learned Court of Judicial Magistrate, Room No. 07, Kanpur Nagar.
3. Counsel for the applicant submits that present proceeding agaisnt the applicant is malicious prosecution and is liable to be set aside. Prosecution witnesses have stated in their deposition that the cheque was given as security cheque and the applicant is not liable to be prosecuted.
4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the submission raised by applicant's counsel.
5. Considered the argument raised by applicant's counsel, on perusal of documents annexed with the application, it is apparent that proceeding U/s 313 Cr.P.C. has been completed and proceedings is at the verge of conclusion. Submission of applicant is that prosecution witnesses had not supported the prosecution story and from the statement it is apparent that cheque was given as security cheque. The submission raised by applicant's counsel cannot be examined at this stage as trial court has power to examine the witnesses and statement of witnesses produced before the court. This Court sitting in jurisdiction of 528 BNSS cannot appreciate the deposition as well as evidence produced by the parties before the court. Hon'ble Apex Court, by way of various judgments has stated that the High Court sitting in 528 BNSS can not appreciate and examine the deposition and evidence filed before the trial court, as such, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the proceeding and the proceeding is at the verge of conclusion. No interference is warranted.
6. The grounds taken in the application reveal that many of them relate to disputed question of fact. This Court is of the view that it is well settled that the appreciation of evidence is a function of the trial court. This Court in exercise of power under Section 528 BNSS cannot assume such jurisdiction and put an end to the process of trial provided under the law. It is also settled by the Apex Court in catena of judgments that The impugned criminal proceeding against the applicants is abuse of the process of the Court and is liable to be quashed by this Court.the power under Section 528 BNSS at pre-trial stage should not be used in a routine manner but it has to be used sparingly, only in such an appropriate cases, where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the criminal proceedings or where allegations made in First Information Report or charge-sheet and the materials relied in support of same, on taking their face value and accepting in their entirety do not disclose the commission of any offence against the accused. The disputed questions of facts and defence of the accused cannot be taken into consideration at this pre-trial stage.
7. In view of the above, in the light of judgment of the Apex Court in the matters of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, Manik B. Vs. Kadapala Sreyes Reddy and another, 2023 Live Law (SC) 642, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283, no ground for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case, is made out which may call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 528 BNSS as the same do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.
8. The present 528 BNSS application of applicant is hereby dismissed with the aforesaid observation.
(Deepak Verma,J.)
May 6, 2026
Nitin Verma
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free