Court No. - 74 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 44676 of 2024 Applicant :- Dara Yadav @ Vishwanath Singh Yadav And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Tauqeer,Rehana Khan,Rohit Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sanjay Kumar Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Shri Rohit Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Shri Moti Lal, learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State- respondent and Shri Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for opposite party No.2. 2. This application has been filed u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the entire proceedings of Special Session Trial No.176 of 2024 (State Vs. Dara Yadav and others), arising out of case crime No.160 of 2022 under section 323, 504, 506, 354 IPC and 3 (2) Va SC/ST Act, police station Nawabganj, District Prayagraj, pending in the court of Special Judge (SC/ST Act) Prayagraj as well as charge sheet dated 24.06.2022 alongwith the cognizance order dated 06.07.2024 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act) Prayagraj. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that though a First Information Report stood lodged under Sections 323, 504, 506, 354, IPC read with Section 3(2) (Va) of the S.C./S.T. Act but the allegations contained in the F.I.R. do not show any commission of offence particularly in view of the fact that the entire story sought to be narrated in the F.I.R. is totally false as on 05.04.2022, the applicants did not inflict injuries upon the daughter of opposite party No.2 or on her husband and further there is no question of outraging modesty. He further submits that the injuries which have been sought to be sustained by Mahendra and Meena Devi are simple and do not depict any commission of the offence. 4. Learned AGA as well as learned counsel for opposite party No.2 on the other hand submit that the nature of the allegations contained in the F.I.R. as well as the injury report of Meena Devi and Mahendra show that Meena Devi has sustained injuries by hard and blunt object and injuries are multiple. He further submits that the arguments, applicants seeks to raise are basically defences which shall be taken only when the trial commences and the said stage has not yet arrived. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that offences are made out and further in absence of showing any jurisdictional error committed by the court below in summoning the applicants, no fault whatsoever can be attributed in this regard. Further, whatever arguments have been raised are factual in nature cannot be gone into present proceedings in absence of pointing out of any jurisdictional error. 6. Consequently, the Court declines to interfere, the application stands consigned to record. 7. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants be granted liberty to file bail/discharge application before the court below. 8. Needless to point out, if any application is preferred, which is maintainable and permissible under law then this Court has no reasons to disbelieve that the same shall be decided strictly in accordance with law as per the law of the land. Order Date :- 18.2.2025 K.K.Tiwari Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KANT TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad