HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 43273 of 2025 Court No. - 79 HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J. 1. Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Kamal Dev Rai, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The applicant filed this application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. to quash the entire proceeding as well as summoning order dated 24.01.2020 and charge sheet dated 27.12.2018 in Case No. 1585 of 2020 (State Vs. Bhola Shukla), arising out of Case Crime No. 503 of 2018, under Section 506 I.P.C., Police Station Phoolpur, District Varanasi, pending in the court of A.C.J.M. 4th, District Varanasi. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is representative of M/s Shushila Trading Company and having a contract of vehicle parking. His wife look-after the business. The opposite party no. 2 was making illegal demand from him. When he denied, his tender was cancelled. He filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against the Airport employees. Thereafter as counterblast, opposite party no. 2 lodged a first information report as Case Crime No. 503 of 2018, under Section 506 I.P.C., Police Station Phoolpur, District Varanasi against the applicant with the allegation that the applicant has threatened him for dire consequences by making telephonic call. After investigation, charge sheet was filed against the applicant and the learned Magistrate took cognizance. He further submits that the Investigating Officer has not conducted investigation fairly whereas no case is made out against him as per evidence collected during investigation. The applicant has not made any telephonic call to opposite party no. 2. There is no evidence to prove this fact. All the allegations are false and frivolous and general in nature. No case is made out against the applicant, therefore, summoning order as well as charge sheet are liable to be set aside. 4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has submitted that the opposite party no. 2 Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sunil Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Bhola Shukla .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) lodged a first information report as Case Crime No. 503 of 2018, under Section 506 I.P.C., Police Station Phoolpur, District Varanasi against the applicant with the allegation that he was threatened by the applicant for dire consequences. During investigation, statement of the opposite party no. 2 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein he supported the version of the first information report. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance. He further submits that from the perusal of the allegations made in the first information report and the statements of the opposite party no. 2 and the material collected during the course of investigation, prima facie offence is clearly made out against the applicant and as such, entire proceedings cannot be quashed. 5. As per facts of this case, opposite party no. 2 lodged a first information report as Case Crime No. 503 of 2018, under Section 506 I.P.C. at Police Station Phoolpur, District Varanasi against the applicant. During investigation, his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded. After investigation, charge sheet was filed against the applicant. Thereafter learned Magistrate has taken cognizance. 6. From the perusal of material on record and the facts of the case, at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant. All the submissions made at the bar relates to the disputed questions on fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of power conferred under Section 528 B.N.S.S.. At this stage, only prima facie case to be considered in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in the case of RP Kapoor Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1990 SC 66; State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Criminal) 426; and State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Criminal) 192. The disputed defence of the applicants cannot be considered at this stage. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any ground to quash the aforementioned case, therefore, the prayer for quashing the same is hereby refused and the application is dismissed. April 23, 2026 Rmk. NA528 No. 43273 of 2025 2 (Chawan Prakash,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAM MURTI KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- RAM MURTI KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad