Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:32360 Court No. - 74 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 6328 of 2025 Applicant :- Mohd. Saleem And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Kumar Shukla,Aklesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri Akhlesh Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Muniraj Mehrotra, learned AGA for the Stage. 2. This is an application U/S 528 of BNSS filed for quashing the entire proceedings of Case No. 1504 of 2024 (Stte Vs. Mohd. Saleem and others), Charge sheet dated 23.07.2024 as charge sheet No. 88 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No 72 of 2024, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 308, 325 IPC, P.S. Fafamau, District Prayagraj as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 18.12.2024 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 6, Allahabad. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that a first information report stood lodged by the opposite party No. 2 against the applicants and four others under Sections 147, 149, 323, 504, 506 IPC relatable to the commission of offences on 27.03.2024 whereby with relation to execution of a work, certain amount was tendered in advance but the work was not being resorted to but when the demand was being made then the applicants barged upon the opposite party in which the three brothers of the applicant Museem, Muslim and Mustqueen sustained injuries. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the injuries though are simple in nature, however, there is another FIR lodged by the applicants faction against the opposite party No. 2 on the same date i.e. 27.03.2024 under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC relatable to the commission of offences on 25.03.2024, wherein applicant No. 1 also sustained injuries which are grievous in nature. He submits that it is nothing but a counter blast. 4. Learned AGA, on the other hand, submits that once there happens to be a cross FIR and injuries have been sustained by both factions then the existence of the incident cannot be ruled out. 5. Having heard the arguments made across the bar, this Court is of the opinion that once there are two FIRs by two different factions relatable to the incident on the same date and injuries have been sustained by both the parties then it cannot be said that the offences are not being made out. Apart from the same, this Court is not required to go into the factual aspects regarding the innocence as what is to be seen is the fact as to whether offences are made or not. Apparently offences are made out and whatever arguments are being sought to be made, they are the matter of defences which can only be taken when the trial commences. 6. Accordingly, interference is declined, application is consigned to record. 7. Learned counsel for the applicants seeks direction for consideration of his bail application in light of the judgment in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another; decided on 07.10.2021 in S.L.P. No.5191 of 2021 8. In the opinion of the Court, once a bail application is preferred then the same shall be considered with most expeditions strictly as per the law of the land without any delay. Order Date :- 6.3.2025 Rajesh Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad