HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 45933 of 2025 Court No. - 79 HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J. 1. Heard Mr. Gyanendra Prasad Mahant, learned Counsel for applicants, Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for State and perused the record. 2. This application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed by the applicants with the following prayer: "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant application by quashing the charge sheet dated 14.10.2025 and the cognizance with summoning order dated 01.11.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-III, Aligarh as well as the entire proceedings of Case No. 1883/2025, (State vs. Satish & others) arising out of Case Crime No. 286/2025, under sections 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 352, 351(2), 109, 117(2) BNS, Police Station Akrabad, District Aligarh, presently pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate-III, Aligarh, So that justice be done, otherwise the applicants shall suffer irreparable loss and hard injury." 3. Learned Counsel for the applicants submits that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case due to Gram Panchayat Election rivalry. Opposite party no.2 lodged a First Information Report as Case Crime No. 286 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 352, 351(2), 109 and 117(2) BNS against the applicants at Police Station Akrabad, District Aligarh with an allegation that they have committed marpeet with him using weapon lathi danda, sword and iron rod. Injured Gautam, Durgesh Dixit, Rajkumar and Deepu were medically examined but Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Gyanendra Prasad Mahant Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Sanjeev Kumar Mishra Satish And 5 Others .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) the injuries were not of such a nature which constitute an offence under Section 307 I.P.C. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the applicants and learned Magistrate has taken cognizance against them, whereas no prima facie case is made out against the applicants, therefore, the cognizance order as well as entire proceedings of the aforesaid case may be quashed. 4. Per contra, learned Counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. have submitted that the applicants have beaten the opposite party no.2 and his family members with iron rods and lathi danda due to which four persons sustained injuries. They have further submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the F.I.R., the statements of the informant and witnesses, injury report and the material collected during the course of investigation, prima facie offence is clearly made out against the applicants and as such, entire proceedings cannot be quashed. 5. As per record, opposite party no.2 lodged a First Information Report as Case Crime No. 286 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 352, 351(2), 109 and 117(2) BNS against the applicants at Police Station Akrabad, District Aligarh regarding the incident dated 11.06.2025. Injured Gautam, Durgesh Dixit, Rajkumar and Deepu were medically examined. During investigation, statements of the informant and other witnesses were recorded. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the applicants and learned Magistrate has taken cognizance against them vide order dated 01.11.2025. 6. 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. All the submission made at the Bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of power conferred under Section 528 BNSS. At this stage, only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this NA528 No. 45933 of 2025 2 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. 8. Accordingly, the application under Section 528 BNSS is dismissed. April 29, 2026 Vijay NA528 No. 45933 of 2025 3 (Chawan Prakash,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIJAY KUMAR SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad