HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 38442 of 2025 Court No. - 78 HON'BLE NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and the learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 2. This application under Section 528 of BNSS has been filed by the applicants - Smt. Asha, Dilip and Jitendra with the prayer to quash the charge-sheet, cognizance order dated 15.9.2025 as well as the entire proceedings in Case No. 42524 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 145 of 2025, under Sections 109, 352, 351(2)(3) of BNS and 3/25/27 of Arms Act, Police Station Raksa, District Jhansi pending before the Additional Civil Judge (SD), Court No.1, Jhansi / ACJM, Jhansi and further to stay further proceedings of the aforesaid case. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel of the applicants that the FIR has been lodged on false grounds while the applicants have not committed any offence. The police has also submitted charge sheet on the basis of insufficient evidence against the applicants. Essential ingredients to constitute offence are lacking. The present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention. It is also submitted that specific role of causing firearm injury to the injured has been assigned to Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Harish Chandra Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Narendra Kumar Smt.Asha And 2 Others .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) the co-accused Harimohan. It is also submitted that only general role of assault has been assigned to the present applicants. It is also submitted that it is not the claim of the prosecution that the crime was committed by all the accused persons with common object. Learned counsel for the applicants pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention. 4. Learned AGA and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 opposed the prayer and submitted that the criminal act was done by all the accused persons with the common object of all. There is convincing evidence collected by the I.O. during investigation against the four named accused persons to the effect that all the four named accused persons had assaulted the persons of informant side. The injured Balram has sustained serious gunshot injury in his chest and Dipesh, brother of the informant, also sustained some lacerated wounds when he was assaulted. Sufficient and ample evidence has been collected by the I.O. against the applicants during course of investigation. 5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record carefully. 6. As is evident, all the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 528 of BNSS. At this stage only a prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, 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. NA528 No. 38442 of 2025 2 Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. From a perusal of the material available on record and keeping in view the facts of the case, at this stage it cannot be said that offences levelled against the applicants are not made out. Sufficient evidence has been collected against the applicants during the course of investigation. Hence, prayer made in the application is refused and the application is dismissed. 7. However, it is observed that in case the applicants move discharge application within one month from today, the same may be decided by the Court concerned in accordance with law within a period of two months thereafter. October 7, 2025 safi NA528 No. 38442 of 2025 3 (Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- MAHBOOB SAFI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad