HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 22973 of 2025 Court No. - 77 HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Document showing criminal history of applicant, preferred by learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 is taken on record. 2. Heard Ms. Shreya Gupta, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Monarch Tripathi, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned AGA for State. 3. Present application has been preferred with prayer to quash the charge- sheet dated 10.12.2024 under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 147, 148, 149, 452, 447, 506, 511, 327, 34 & 120B IPC, filed against the applicant in Case Crime no. 390 of 2024 under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 147, 148, 149, 452, 447, 506 & 511 IPC at Police Station- Nawabad, District Jhansi, summoning/cognizance order dated 17.12.2024, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi in Criminal Misc. Case no. 2421 of 2024 (State vs. Harendra Kumar Masih) and the entire proceedings of Criminal Misc. Case no. 2421 of 2024 (State vs. Harendra Kumar Masih) arising out of Case Crime no. 390 of 2024. 4. While assailing entire proceeding in shape of charge sheet and cognizance order, it is contended by learned counsel for applicant that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The statements of witnesses clearly indicate that incident of assault as has been alleged in the FIR never took place. Neither anyone assaulted the first informant nor even broke open the lock of her house or entered the premises. Applicant had no involvement in commission of any of the offences as alleged in the FIR, it is for this reason that none of the hollow assertions made by the first informant and her Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ravi Anand Agarwal, Shreya Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Monarch Tripathi Harendra Kumar Masih .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) family members could be corroborated on the basis of any cogent and reliable evidence. There were various photographs and video recordings in possession of the first informant, her family members and the Investigating Agency, yet the applicant could not been seen/spotted doing any mischief or inappropriate conduct with the first informant at the place of occurrence in any of those video recordings and photographs. Learned Magistrate concerned, while taking cognizance of offence, also did not appreciated that this was a case of no evidence of forgery, assault, intimidation, cheating or conspiracy and mechanically and illegally summoned the applicant under all the aforementioned sections, hence the entire proceeding is liable to be set aside. 5. Per contra, Sri Monarch Tripathi, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned AGA for State vehemently opposed the prayer sought through instant application and submitted that entire arguments raised by learned counsel for applicant is subject matter of trial and cannot be considered at this stage. It is also submitted by learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 that there are about 31 cases credited to applicant as criminal history which has not been disclosed by applicant while preferring the instant application. Out of said 31 cases, majority of the cases are in pursuance to sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and implication of applicant in present case is also in the same sections, this crystal clearly shows that applicant is a habitual offender and is not entitled to any relief. 6. After hearing the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, it is observed that prima facie it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant. The assertions of false implication raised by the applicant are factual issues that requires proper adjudication by the trial court based on evidence and cannot be conclusively determined in proceedings under Section 528 BNSS. In proceeding u/s 528 BNSS, this Court is not inclined to hold mini-trial. Moreover, the criminal history credited to applicant as disclosed by learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 which are about 31 in numbers, indicates that applicant is a habitual offender and conscious of this Court does not permit to grant any relief to applicant in the present proceeding. 7. Furthermore, it is well settled that the inherent powers under Section 528 NA528 No. 22973 of 2025 2 BNSS are to be exercised sparingly and with caution, primarily to prevent abuse of the process of the court or to secure the ends of justice. In the instant case, no sufficient ground have been made out to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 BNSS. 8. In view of the foregoing, the application under Section 528 BNSS is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. However, applicant is at liberty to prefer discharge application by way of putting his appearance before learned court concerned within two weeks from today. October 9, 2025 Shaswat NA528 No. 22973 of 2025 3 (Saurabh Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHASWAT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad