Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:65811 Court No. - 52 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 8395 of 2025 Applicant :- Ramsagar Tiwari And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Anoop Bhaiya Lal Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J. 1. Heard Mr. Anoop Bhaiya Lal Shukla, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Rahul Yadav, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 as well as Mr. Satyendra Tiwari, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. This application U/S 528 BNSS has been filed by the applicants to quash the charge-sheet no.209A/ 2024 dated 23.12.2024, cognizance/ summoning order dated 24.01.2025 as well as entire proceedings of S.S.T. No.33 of 2025 (State Vs. Raj Kumar and 6 others), arising out of Case Crime No.180 of 2024, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 504, 452, 325 I.P.C. and 3(2)(va) SC/ST Act, Police Station Jalalpur, District Jaunpur, pending in the court of Special Jude SC/ST Act, Jaunpur. 3. Brief facts of the case are that an F.I.R. has been lodged by Rajkumar Saroj, opposite party no.2 against seven named accused persons including the applicants with the allegation that opposite party no.2 was doing repairing work of drains and roads in the Gaon Sabha, when the alleged accused Raj Kumar Gaur along with Rajan, Sonu and Amit arrived at the spot and started abusing him. When he objected to the same, they used caste indicative words and assaulted him with lathi and danda. The opposite party no.2 managed to save himself with the help and assistance of villagers who reached there. When the opposite party no.2 went to give an application to the police station Jalalpur in this regard, in the meantime, the alleged accused persons Rajkumar Gaur, Girijashankar Tiwari, Vidyasagar Tiwari and Ramsagar Tiwari having lathi, danda, gandasa and other weapons in their hand entered the house of opposite party no.2 and assaulted his younger brother Manoj, with a lathi due to which he sustained injuries on his head and also injured his finger. The wife of his younger brother was also assaulted on the said date of incident i.e. 17.06.2024 between 11 to 12 O'Clock in the afternoon. 4. After treatment being given to the injured an application was given on 21.06.2024 for lodging of the F.I.R. After investigation charge-sheet has been submitted against the applicants on 23.12.2024 being charge-sheet no. 209A of 2024 and the applicants have been summoned by order dated 24.01.2025. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. He further submits that from the version of F.I.R. allegation of using caste indicative words were against other co-accused persons and not against the applicants. He next submits that initially after investigation charge-sheet has been submitted on 12.08.2024, wherein applicants have been exonerated although they were named in the F.I.R. Subsequently, without moving any application before the court concerned further investigation has been conducted by the Investigating Officer and the charge-sheet has been submitted. 6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the present F.I.R. has been lodged by the opposite party no. 2, with the ulterior intention of harassing the applicants as a counter-blast to the criminal case which has been instituted against opposite party no.2 Rajkumar Saroj, Manoj, Satyam, Saurabh by Smt. Sunita Devi, wife of Vijay Gaur on 17.06.2024 at 20:15 hours for the incident dated 17.06.2024. 7. He further submits that during the course of investigation, the opposite party no.2 has reiterated the version of F.I.R. None of the charge-sheet witnesses in their statement has proved the presence of the applicants at that time and place of incident. Accordingly, the charge-sheet was submitted against the other co-accused persons on 12.08.2024 and not against the applicants. 8. He has placed reliance upon the affidavit of one Karan Vishwakarma, which was given on 02.08.2024 in respect of the F.I.R. lodged by Smt. Sunita Devi, wife of Vijay Gaur, one of the accused in the present case as annexed at page no.29 to the supplementary affidavit, in which he has stated that it is Rajkumar Saroj and others who are accused in the present case had beaten the applicants side and in order to save themselves, lodged a false report by showing a fake incident and the presence of the applicants is not proved. He further submits that one Ankesh Singh whose statement was recorded on 26.06.2024 has denied the presence of the applicants on the date of the alleged incident. He next submits that one Jokhan Tiwari in their statements recorded on 26.06.2024 and Shyamnath Yadav and Ram Prasad Singh have reiterated the version of Ankesh Singh. 9. He has next placed reliance upon the statement dated 29.07.2024 of one Arvind Kumar Singh, who was working as a teacher where accused Ramsagar Tiwari was also working, has stated that false case has been lodged by opposite party no.2 against the applicants. Mr. Praveen Kumar Srivastava, Principle of the Institution where Ramsagar Tiwari was teaching, has stated in his statement that on 17.06.2024, Ramsagar Tiwari was present at the school all the day. He has next stated that he could not produced the CCTV footage of that day because the same was deleted. 10. The statement of Brahmkumar Dubey has been recorded, who has stated that Vidyasagar Tiwari was admitted on 16.06.2024 in his hospital and was discharged on 21.06.2024, therefore, it can be said that he was present in the hospital on the date of incident. The CCTV footage storage is deleted after every 15 days, therefore, the same is not available. 11. Emphasizing upon page 63 of the application, learned counsel for the applicants submits that on the date of the incident mobile location of the applicant Vidyasagar Tiwari is near the hospital, therefore, it cannot be said that they were present at the place of incident. 12. He next submits that the applicants have been summoned on the basis of supplementary charge-sheet without considering the earlier documents and no reasoned order has been passed as to why the applicants, who were exonerated in the earlier charge- sheet, have been summoned, therefore, the order impugned is passed without application of judicial mind. 13. Lastly, learned counsel for the applicants submits that while summoning the applicants, reasons should be disclosed as to why prima facie offence is made out against them. In support of his submission he has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Lalankumar Singh & ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2022 LawSuit (SC) 1209. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicants to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against them. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicants have also been touched upon at length. 14. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State submit that from parcha no.15 dated 03.09.2024 it is clear that order dated 02.09.2024 was passed returning the charge-sheet as submitted by the Investigating Officer on 12.08.2024, raising objection on 5 issues, after which further investigation was carried on by order of Superintendent of Police, Jaunpur by another Investigating Officer, who after recording the statements of independent witnesses has submitted the charge-sheet on 23.12.2024, thereafter applicants have been summoned by the concerned Magistrate. From the version of F.I.R., the evidence as collected by the Investigating Officer, prior and after further investigation as well as other documents go to show that prima facie offience is made out against the applicants. They further submit that counsel for the applicants has relied upon the affidavit of Karan Vishwakarma and statements of Ankesh Singh, Jokhan Tiwari, Shyamnath Yadav, Ram Prasad Singh, Arvind Kumar Singh, Praveen Kumar Srivastava and Brahmkumar Dubey to prove the non-involvement of the applicants in the alleged incident, are prior to the order of further investigation, after considering which the charge-sheet has been submitted on 12.08.2024 and the same was returned with five queries. After further investigation charge-sheet has been submitted on which applicants have been summoned finding their involvement in the present case. They next submit that even otherwise the aforesaid witnesses are either related to the applicants or interested witnesses and no CCTV footage has been placed to support the statements of Brahmkumar Dubey or Praveen Kumar Srivastava. 15. As regard the submission made by counsel for the applicants that mobile location of applicant No.2-Vidya Sagar Tiwari was near the hospital also go to prove that applicant No.2-Vidya Sagar Tiwari was not present at the time and place of the incident, they submit that from the mobile location of applicant No.2-Vidya Sagar Tiwari cannot be traced as it has no where stated that Vidya Sagar Tiwari was carrying his mobile phone with him at the time and place of incident. They also submit that prima facie offence against the applicants has been made out as they have been summoned after perusing the entire case diary and application of judicial mind. The medical report and evidence of injured Manoj Kumar Saroj as well as statements of Vijay Shankar, Jang Bahadur, Paras Nath Shukla, who are independent witnesses go to prove the presence of the applicants at the time and place of incident. The judgment as relied upon by counsel for the applicants is not applicable in the facts of the presence case as after pointing out the shortcoming in the charge-sheet the same was returned and order for further investigation was passed after collecting evidence, which are material and have been considered by the court concerned and the applicants have been summoned as prima facie offence is made out against them. Lastly, they submits that the impugned summoning order has been passed after appraising the evidence available on the face of record, therefore the impugned order is perfectly, legal just and proper which calls for no interference by this Court in exercise of powers conferred under 528 BNSS jurisdiction. 16. This Court finds that the submissions made by the applicants' counsel call for adjudication on pure questions of fact which may adequately be adjudicated upon only by the trial court and while doing so even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court in this case. The issue whether it is appropriate for this Court being the highest Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS to quash the charge-sheet and the proceedings at the stage when the Magistrate has merely issued process against the applicants and trial is yet to come only on the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicants that present criminal case initiated by opposite party no.2 are not only malicious but also abuse of process of law has elaborately been discussed by the Apex Court in the following judgments: (i) R.P. Kapur Versus State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866; (ii) State of Haryana & Ors. Versus Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors.1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335; (iii) State of Bihar & Anr. Versus P.P. Sharma & Anr. 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 222; (iv) Zandu Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd. & Ors. Versus Mohammad Shariful Haque & Anr. 2005 (1) SCC 122; (v) M. N. Ojha Vs. Alok Kumar Srivastava 2009 (9) SCC 682; (vi) Mohd. Allauddin Khan Vs. The State of Bihar & Others (2019 ) Supreme (SC) 454; (vii) Nallapareddy Sridhar Reddy Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (2020) Supreme (SC) 45; (viii) Rajeev Kaurav Vs. Balasahab & Others (2020 ) Supreme (SC) 143, and (ix) M/s Neeharika, Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. The State of Maharashtra (2021) SCC OnLine SC 315. 17. In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not deem it proper, and therefore cannot be persuaded to have a pre-trial before the actual trial begins. A threadbare discussion of various facts and circumstances, as they emerge from the allegations made against the accused, is being purposely avoided by the Court for the reason, lest the same might cause any prejudice to either side during trial. But it shall suffice to observe that the perusal of the F.I.R. and the material collected by the Investigating Officer on the basis of which the charge sheet has been submitted makes out a prima facie case against the accused, at this stage, and there appear to be sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. I do not find any justification to quash the charge sheet or the proceedings against the applicants arising out of them as the case does not fall in any of the categories recognized by the Apex Court which may justify their quashing. 18. The prayer for quashing the impugned charge-sheet as well as cognizance/summoning order and the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case are refused, as I do not see any abuse of the court's process at this pre-trial stage. 19. The present application has no merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 28.4.2025 Abhishek Singh Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad