Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:37073 Court No. - 71 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 8469 of 2025 Applicant :- Shyam Narayan @ Manoj Dubey Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pt. S.P. Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been preferred for quashing of entire proceedings, including the summoning order dated 06.02.2025, of Complaint Case No.4340 of 2020 (Heera Lal Dubey Vs. Shyam Narayan @ Manoj Dubey), under Sections 352, 406, 419, 420, 468, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Suriyawan, District- Bhadohi, pending in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (S.D.)- IInd/A.C.J.M., Bhadohi, Gyanpur. 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the impugned complaint has been lodged by the opposite party no.2, making false and baseless allegations. Earlier, the applicant has moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 31.10.2020 against his brother Jai Prakash and one Vinod Kumar and Vibhav Kumar @ Chhotu and thereafter the opposite party no.2 has moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 09.11.2020 as a counterblast. On the application of the applicant, a first information report was registered. The opposite party no.2 has moved said application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against his son Shyam Narayan @ Manoj Dubey (applicant). The allegations levelled against applicant, are wholly false. Learned counsel has referred facts of the matter and submitted that impugned proceedings are malicious and counterblast and thus liable to be quashed. 4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and submitted that the opposite party no.2/complainant is father of applicant. The alleged first information report was lodged by the applicant against his brother Jai Prakash and one Vinod Kumar and Vibhav Kumar @ Chhotu. The complainant has made clear allegations that the applicant has obtained a loan of Rs.5 lakhs from bank by way of cheating and forgery and by making forged signature of opposite party no.2. 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 judgement reported in AIR 1992 SC 605 State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal, Supreme Court has carved out certain guidelines, wherein FIR or proceedings may be quashed but cautioned that the power to quash FIR or proceedings should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases. In this connection, a reference may also be made to the case of R. Kalyani vs. Janak C. Mehta and Others, 2009 (1) SCC 516, Rupan Deol Bajaj vs. K.P.S. Gill (1995) SCC (Cri) 1059, Rajesh Bajaj vs. State of NCT of Delhi, (1999) 3 SCC 259 and Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd vs. Biological E Ltd. & Ors, 2000 SCC (Cri) 615. It has been held that if a prima facie case is made out disclosing ingredients of the offence, court should not quash the charge sheet/complaint. It is equally well settled that at this stage questions of fact cannot be examined and a mini trial cannot be held. 7. In the instant matter, perusal of record shows that the impugned complaint has been lodged by father of applicant. There are allegations that applicant has obtained a loan of Rs.5 lakhs from bank against property by way of cheating and forgery and by making forged signature of opposite party no.2. The submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicant call for determination on questions of fact, which may adequately be discerned/adjudicated only by the trial court. Even the submissions made on point of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court. Considering allegations made in the impugned complaint and material on record, the impugned proceedings are not liable to be quashed merely because earlier the applicant has lodged a first information report against his brother and the grand sons of complainant. Hence, the present application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. is liable to be dismissed. 8. The application u/s 528 B.N.S.S. is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 17.3.2025 'SP'/- Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad