Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:34626 Court No. - 74 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 4241 of 2025 Applicant :- Amrit Singh And 8 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sohit Prakash Sharma Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, who are nine in number, Sri Abhishek Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Bharat Singh holding brief of Sri Sohit Prakash Sharma, learned counsel for O.P. No.2. 2. This is an application under Section 528 BNSS preferred by the applicants for quashing the entire proceedings of complaint/ application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. dated 03.06.2021 filed by O.P. No. 2 including the summoning order dated 03.07.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Agra, in Complaint No. 73/2021, Nathuram Vs. Amrit Singh and others, under Section 323, 427, 504, 506 І.Р.С. & 3(1)г, 3(1)s SC/ST Act, Police Station Basoni, District Agra. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that proceedings under Section 156(3) CrPC stood triggered on 03.06.2021 relatable to the commission of the offences under Sections 147, 323, 429, 504, 505 IPC read with Sections 3(1)(G)(N)(Z) of SC/ST (P.A.) Act with an allegation that on 25.12.2020, when the opposite party no.2 was sitting in his field, then the applicants hurled caste-based abuses and also administered beating and also destroyed the crops to the tune of Rs. 1 lac. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that there happens to be a rivalry between applicant faction and O.P. No.2 faction, as on 20.02.2021, an NCR stood lodged relatable to the commission of offences on 19.02.2021 under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC against Pinku, who is the Master and the applicant no.2 is the servant. He submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the case in question. Submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that the incident is dated 25.12.2020, however, there has been delay in lodging of the proceedings under Section 156(3) on 03.06.2021 and further there also happens to be invocation of the proceedings under Sections 151, 107/116 of the IPC against both the factions. Thus, it is contended that the applicants have been falsely implicated and they have been roped in. 4. Learned A.G.A as well as counsel appearing for the O.P. No.2 submit that even prior to lodging of the proceedings under Section 156(3) CrPC on 03.06.2021, on 02.01.2021 relatable to the commission of the offences on 25.12.2020, information was given to the Police Station and the same was communicated to the S.S.P. and however, when the proceeding was not lodged, then application under Section 156(3) CrPC was filed on 03.06.2021. They further submit that the interpretation so sought to be raised by the applicant regarding filing of NCR on 20.02.2021 relatable to the commission of offences on 19.02.2021 is concerned, the same has got no co-relation, as it relates to different occurrence/event, which cannot be intermingled with the same. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records carefully. Apparently, in the present case, there happens to be proceedings under Section 156(3) CrPC lodged by O.P. No.2 on 03.06.2021, however, in paragraph-7 of the 156(3) application, recital has been made to the fact that though on 02.01.2021, information to the police was given and report was also sent on 02.01.2021 to the SSP, however, failing to lodge FIR / NCR, the proceedings under Section 156(3) CrPC stood lodged. Furthermore, the recitals contained in the application under Section 156(3) CrPC also discloses the offences as caste-based abuses were hurled, that too in a public view in an open field. Besides the same, the Court further finds that the NCR dated 20.02.2021 under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC by the applicant- faction is relatable to offence on a different date, i.e. 19.02.2021 whereas in the present case, the offence is of 25.12.2020. 6. In view of the above, the Court does not find any irregularity in the summoning order. Accordingly, the application stands rejected. 7. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant submits that a direction be issued for consideration of the bail. 8. This Court has no reason to disbelieve that in case applicant moves appropriate proceedings before the court below for enlargement of bail, then the same may be decided with most expedition in accordance with the law of the land. Order Date :- 10.3.2025 N.S.Rathour (Vikas Budhwar, J) Digitally signed by :- NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad