Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:17308 Court No. - 74 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 44681 of 2024 Applicant :- Chhedi Ansari And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Shoeb Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri Mohd. Shoeb Khan learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Muniraj Mehrotra, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Vijay Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2. 2. This is an application under Section 528 of the B.N.S., 2023 filed by the applicants for challenging the entire criminal proceedings as well as charge sheet dated 9.11.2022 of S.T. No.634 of 2023 (State vs. Chhedi Ansari and others) arising out of Case Crime No.439 of 2022, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 504, 506, 354B IPC, read with Section 7/8 of POCSO Act and Section 3(1) (da)/3(1) (dha) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Kotwali Padrauna, District Kushinagar pending in the court of learned Special Judge POCSO Act, Court No.1,Kushinagar. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the entire proceedings emanating from the impugned FIR are nothing but malicious prosecution particularly in view of the fact that the dispute is with respect to a piece of plot which is in the possession of the applicants on which the opposite parties are seeking to claim their rights, title and possession and in this regard earlier also on 4.7.2019 an FIR No.0319 of 2019 was lodged under Section 3(1) (da) of SC/ST Act and Sections 427, 392, 354, 452, 506, 504, 323, 147 IPC and just in order to harass again FIR is being sought to be lodged with relation to the alleged incident dated 4.6.2022 taking the aid of the proceedings under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. He further submits that no such incident has occurred and there is no question of any sustaining injury or outraging the modesty. 4. Learned AGA as well as the counsel for the opposite party no.2 submit that cognizable offences are made out and even in fact the narration of the allegations contained in the first information report tallies with the statement under Sections 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. They further submit that this Court may not interfere in the present proceedings. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. In the opinion of the Court since natural aspects cannot be gone into the present proceedings and coupled with the fact that no jurisdictional error is being sought to be pointed out and further so far as the malicious prosecution is concerned, it is the matter which has to be thrashed out in the facts and circumstances of the case when the trial commences thus looking into the facts and circumstances of the case this Court declines to interfere in the present proceedings. 7. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicants has submitted the direction be issued to the court below to direct for consideration of the bail of the applicants with the proposed to file. He seeks to rely upon the decision in the case of Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2022) 10 SCC 51. 8. Learned AGA as well as the counsel for the opposite party no.2 submit that once the applicants would be filed a bail application then the Court would decide the same. 9. This Court has no reason to disbelieve that once the bail application is being preferred by the applicants then the same shall be decided strictly in accordance with law taking into account the factual and the other issues with the applicants seeks to raise in accordance with law with most expedition. 10. Accordingly, the present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. stands disposed of. Order Date :- 6.2.2025 piyush Digitally signed by :- PIYUSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad