Allahabad HC Quashes Charges Against Arms-Licence Applicant, Finding His And Co-Accused’s Licence Applications Were Separate Transactions

In brief

The question

1. Whether the applicant and the co-accused could be charged and tried jointly under Section 223 CrPC when the alleged licence applications and supporting affidavits were separate and made at different times

The court held

The High Court held that the impugned charge-framing order was unsustainable and quashed the order dated 16 July 2025 framing charges against the applicant in Case No. 02 of 2022.

It also directed

The application under Section 528 BNSS was allowed.

01Facts

The applicant challenged the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhabad’s order dated 16 July 2025 framing charges under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC in a case arising from allegations that the applicant and a co-accused had submitted affidavits containing different dates of birth in connection with separate applications for arms licences

¶ 2–4

The applicant argued that the alleged acts occurred at different times and did not form part of the same transaction, so the accused could not be jointly tried under Section 223 CrPC

¶ 6–8

By the time the application was considered, the prosecution had examined eight witnesses and the examination-in-chief of a ninth witness had been recorded

¶ 5

the State opposed interference, relying in part on the advanced stage of trial and the absence of demonstrated prejudice

¶ 10–15

02Issues

i.1. Whether the applicant and the co-accused could be charged and tried jointly under Section 223 CrPC when the alleged licence applications and supporting affidavits were separate and made at different times

¶ 6–8, 16

ii.2. Whether the charge-framing order should be quashed on the ground that the alleged acts did not constitute offences committed in the course of the same transaction

¶ 15–17

03Law Applied

Section 223 CrPC permits persons accused of the same or different offences to be charged and tried together where the offences were committed in the course of the same transaction; the central inquiry is whether the acts are connected by such matters as common purpose or design and continuity of action

¶ 8B, quoting Balbir v. State of Haryana · ¶ 8C

The Court also relied on Mamman Khan v. State of Haryana and Parvinder Singh v. Directorate of Enforcement in considering the application of the joint-trial provisions

¶ 8C–8D, 16

The application was brought under Section 528 BNSS, invoking the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction

¶ 2, 18

Provisions in the judgment · 19 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528

Indian Penal Code, 1860 10 provisions

Section 71 Section 379 Section 380 Section 411 Section 414 Section 419 Section 420 Section 467 Section 468 Section 471

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 212 Section 218 Section 219 Section 220 Section 221 Section 222 Section 223

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 317

04Reasoning

The Court considered the alleged conduct to concern multiple accused who had submitted false affidavits in connection with arms-licence applications.

It concluded that the licence applicants could not, on that basis, be treated as having participated in the same transaction of crime.

¶ 16

It therefore accepted the applicant’s objection to the joint proceedings, notwithstanding the State’s arguments concerning the stage of trial, lack of demonstrated prejudice and the fact-specific nature of the “same transaction” inquiry.

¶ 10–15

The Court did not separately analyse the State’s submission about prejudice or explain how the cited authorities applied to the particular evidence.

05Holding

The High Court held that the impugned charge-framing order was unsustainable and quashed the order dated 16 July 2025 framing charges against the applicant in Case No. 02 of 2022.

¶ 17

The application under Section 528 BNSS was allowed.

¶ 18

LawLens.Allahabad High Court

Original Court PDF