Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:66499 Court No. - 52 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 5768 of 2025 Applicant :- Vakeel And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Maohammd Nadeem Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J. 1. Heard Mr. Mohammad Nadeem, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Akhilesh Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. This application U/S 528 BNSS has been filed by the applicants to quash the charge-sheet dated 21.08.2023, cognizance/ summoning order dated 25.07.2024 as well as entire proceedings of Case No. 783 of 2024 (State Vs. Vakeel and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 456 of 2023, under Sections 323, 504, 325 I.P.C., Police Station Gursahaiganj, District Kannauj, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kannauj. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 28.03.2023 at about 5 P.M. applicants Vakeel, Nafees, Mahtab and Jakil came to the applicant’s house and started hurling abuses at him. Upon confrontation by the opposite party, the applicants started beating him. When the opposite party’s brother-in-law came to his rescue the applicants also beat her. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that for the incident dated 28.03.2023 at 3 O'clock an F.I.R. has been lodged from the side of the applicants on the same day at 13:37 hours. The present case has been lodged as a counter blast to the aforesaid case lodged from the side of the applicants to wreck vengeance in order to exert pressure upon the applicant, therefore, this is a case of malicious prosecution. The F.I.R. has been lodged after delay of more than four months after coming to know that an F.I.R. has been lodged from the side of the applicant and delay in lodging the F.I.R. has not been explained. He further submits that it is the applicants who have sustained injuries in the aforesaid incident. From the statement of the charge-sheet witnesses as well as from the version of the F.I.R., no offence under the relevant section is made out against the applicants. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicants to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against them. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicants have also been touched upon at length. 5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. for the State submits that the F.I.R. has been lodged from the side of the applicant on the same day and the applicants admit the incident dated 28.03.2023 at 3 O'clock, for which the present F.I.R. has been lodged, wherein injuries have been sustained by both the parties. He further submits that this court is not sitting to conduct mini trial to find out as to who was aggressor in the incident. Learned A.G.A. next submits that from the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants at this stage. All the submissions made by the counsel for the applicants, relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 528 BNSS. 6. From the statement of the charge-witnesses, version of the F.I.R. as well as other materials available on record a prima facie case is made out against the applicants. When once the incident dated 28.03.2023 is admitted by the applicants by way of lodging the F.I.R. wherein charge-sheet has also been submitted, there is no reason to disbelieve the present F.I.R. 7. This Court is not unmindful of the following judgements of the Apex Court: (i) R.P. Kapur Versus State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866; (ii) State of Haryana & Ors. Versus Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors.1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335; (iii) State of Bihar & Anr. Versus P.P. Sharma & Anr. 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 222; (iv) Zandu Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd. & Ors. Versus Mohammad Shariful Haque & Anr. 2005 (1) SCC 122; (v) M. N. Ojha Vs. Alok Kumar Srivastava 2009 (9) SCC 682; (vi) Mohd. Allauddin Khan Vs. The State of Bihar & Others (2019 ) Supreme (SC) 454; (vii) Nallapareddy Sridhar Reddy Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (2020) Supreme (SC) 45; (viii) Rajeev Kaurav Vs. Balasahab & Others (2020 ) Supreme (SC) 143, and (ix) M/s Neeharika, Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. The State of Maharashtra (2021) SCC OnLine SC 315. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the materials available on record, this Court is of the opinion, that learned counsel for the applicants could not point out any legal infirmity in the impugned order dated 25.07.2024 which may warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of powers conferred under 528 BNSS jurisdiction. Therefore, prayer in respect of applicants is refused. 9. The instant application is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 28.4.2025/Abhishek Singh Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad