Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:32465 Court No. - 73 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 7459 of 2025 Applicant :- Keshav Prasad Singh And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vikas Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. This application u/s 528 BNSS has been filed for quashing of the entire proceedings, including summoning order dated 13.08.2024, of Complaint Case No. 743 of 2024 (Hanuman Seth Vs. Keshav Prasad Singh and Another), under Sections - 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station - Jigna, District - Mirzapur, pending in the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division)/F.T.C., Mirzapur. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that impugned complaint has been lodged by the opposite party no.2 making false and baseless allegations. One Santosh Kumar Verma was examined as witness under Section - 202 Cr.P.C. but he has filed an application before the Trial Court that he has not made any such statement and that only his documents of identity and signatures were obtained on some papers. It is further submitted that in fact before summoning of applicants in the impugned complaint, the applicant no.2 has lodged a first information report against opposite party no.2 and others for offence under Section - 506, 504, 471, 468, 467, 420, 406 I.P.C. and in that matter after investigation, police have submitted charge-sheet. Learned counsel has referred facts of the matter and material on record and submitted that no case is made out and the impugned proceedings are malicious and thus, liable to be quashed. 4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and submitted that in view of the allegations made in the complaint and in the statement of complainant, recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C., as well as in the statements of witnesses, recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C., a prima facie case is made out against applicants. It was submitted that after the opposite party no.2 has filed an application under Section - 156 (3) Cr.P.C. against applicants, the applicant no.2 has lodged the said F.I.R. as a counter blast and thus, the version of applicants is counter blast to the version of complainant. 5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 6. The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is well-settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a charge-sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases. However, where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and material on record even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, the charge-sheet may be quashed in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. In well celebrated judgment of State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal AIR 1992 SC 605, Hon'ble Supreme Court has carved out certain guidelines, wherein FIR or proceedings may be quashed but cautioned that the power to quash F.I.R. or proceedings should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases. 7. In the instant matter, the opposite party no.2 has lodged impugned complaint against applicants alleging that they have obtained an amount of total Rs. 15 lakhs from the complainant on pretext of providing job to the sons of complainant. That amount was paid through bank account. The applicants have even been issued a forged joining/training letter and no job was provided to the sons of complainant. The applicants have refused to return the said amount. The version of complainant is supported by the witnesses examined under Section - 202 Cr.P.C.. The contention of learned counsel for the applicants that a forged statement of one Santosh Kumar Verma has been shown to be recorded under Section - 202 Cr.P.C. is wholly misconceived. No such allegation can be accepted against the Magistrate, who recorded such statement. In view of material on record, it cannot be said that no prima facie case is made out against the applicants. The submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicants call for determination on questions of fact, which may be adequately adjudicated upon only by the Trial court and even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into only by the Trial court. Adjudication of questions of facts and appreciation of evidence or examining the reliability and credibility of the version, does not fall within the arena of jurisdiction under Section - 528 BNSS. 8. After considering arguments raised by learned counsel for parties and perusing the impugned complaint and the materials in support of the same, no case for quashing of impugned proceedings is made out. The application u/s - 528 BNSS lacks merit and thus, liable to be dismissed. 9. The application u/s 528 BNSS is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 6.3.2025 S Rawat Digitally signed by :- SHOBHIT RAWAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad