The Allahabad High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against two persons accused in a case involving allegedly forged GST invoices, holding that the allegations and evidence collected during the investigation did not prima facie make out a case against them.
The bench of Justice Saurabh Srivastava, while allowing an application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), held that continuing the prosecution in the absence of sufficient material would result in “clear and patent injustice.”
Buy now: All 200+ GSTAT Judgements Till November 2026 | Comprehensive E-Magazine
The case originated from an FIR dated May 20, 2025, registered as Case Crime No.105 of 2025 at Police Station Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh.
The FIR was lodged against three accused persons, alleging tax evasion through the preparation of forged GST invoices and other documents. Following the investigation, the police submitted a charge-sheet on December 21, 2025, which included the two applicants.
The charge-sheet invoked Sections 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) and 61(2)(A) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
The jurisdictional court took cognizance and issued a summoning order on June 6, 2026. The proceedings were pending as Criminal Case No.3084 of 2025, State vs. Danish and Others, before the Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Sambhal.
The applicants approached the High Court seeking quashing of the proceedings against them, including the charge-sheet and the cognizance/summoning order.
The applicants submitted that they were not named in the original FIR. Their names allegedly surfaced in a statement made by co-accused Shakir under Section 180 BNSS. The co-accused’s statement did not attribute any specific act, role or overt participation to either applicant in the alleged offence.
The applicants further argued that the investigating officer had collected no credible evidence against them and that no recovery had been made from their possession or at their instance.
Alleging false implication, they contended that the proceedings amounted to an abuse of the process of law. They also questioned the fairness of the investigation and argued that the trial court had taken cognizance without applying its judicial mind.
Their counsel relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, concerning the exercise of inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings.
GST Department Failed To Appear Despite Notice
The High Court recorded that neither an officer of the GST Department nor its special counsel appeared despite service of notice.
In these circumstances, the Court proceeded to examine the application on the material available on record and the arguments advanced on behalf of the applicants. The State was represented by the Additional Government Advocate.
The State opposed the application, submitting that the applicants’ arguments involved disputed questions of fact and appreciation of evidence. However, the order records that the Additional Government Advocate could not dispute the submissions made by the applicants’ counsel.
The State also referred to certain criminal-history cases against the applicants. The Court noted that these had been properly explained by their counsel in paragraphs 34 to 44 of the application.
No Independent Witness Linked Applicants To Alleged Fraud
After examining the record and considering the rival submissions, the High Court found that no case had been made out for proceeding with the trial against the applicants.
The Court observed that the investigating officer had collected hardly any material evidence on the basis of which the applicants could be convicted at the conclusion of the trial.
It also noted that no independent witness had made a statement implicating the applicants in the alleged fraud.
The Court’s reasoning therefore rested on the absence of material linking the applicants to the alleged offences. Their omission from the original FIR was part of the defence submissions, but the Court also examined whether the subsequent investigation supplied sufficient grounds to continue the prosecution.
Bhajan Lal Principles Applied
The High Court referred to the illustrative categories laid down by the Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal for exercising inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of the judicial process or secure the ends of justice.
It specifically held that the case fell within category (3), which concerns situations where the uncontroverted allegations and the evidence collected in support do not disclose the commission of an offence or make out a case against the accused.
Applying that principle, the High Court found the allegations against the applicants wholly insufficient to establish a prima facie case.
The Court further observed that the allegations were so far-fetched and improbable that no prudent person could conclude that sufficient grounds existed to proceed against them.
It held that allowing the criminal process to continue in these circumstances would cause clear and patent injustice, warranting intervention under Section 528 BNSS.
The High Court quashed the proceedings in Criminal Case No.3084 of 2025, including the charge-sheet dated December 21, 2025, and the cognizance/summoning order dated June 6, 2026, insofar as they concerned the applicants.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
