Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:41541 Court No. - 71 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 9051 of 2025 Applicant :- Navneet And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Rai 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 20.01.2025, of Complaint Case No. 20501 of 2023 (Rajesh Karnwal Vs. Navneet and Another), under Sections - 323, 325, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station - Najibabad, District - Bijnor, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.3, Bijnor. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that impugned complaint has been lodged making false and baseless allegations. Regarding an incident dated 22.08.2022, the wife of applicant No.1 has lodged a first information report against opposite party No.2 and his brother on 23.08.2022 for offence under Section - 352, 323, 504 I.P.C.. After that the wife of opposite party No.2 has filed an application under Section - 156 (3) Cr.P.C., which was dismissed for want of prosecution. It was submitted that in the case lodged by the wife of applicant No.1, when charges were framed under Section - 307 I.P.C. by the Trial Court, the opposite party No.2 has lodged the impugned complaint, as a counter blast. The injuries shown to the opposite party No.2 and his wife are wholly false and manufactured. It was pointed out that the wife of opposite party No.2 was medically examined on 23.08.2022 and she was brought to the hospital by the opposite party No.2/complainant but the opposite party No.2 did not get himself medically examined. The opposite party No.2 has been medically examined on 24.08.2022. Referring to the facts of the matter, it was submitted that impugned proceedings are malicious and counter blast and thus, liable to be quashed. 4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and submitted that in the alleged incident, the complainant/opposite party No.2 has sustained as many as nine injuries, including grievous injury. The wife of complainant has also sustained injuries. It was submitted that at this stage, matter cannot be examined meticulously. The version of complainant is supported by his medical examination report as well as by the witnesses examined under Section - 202 Cr.P.C. 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 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. 7. In the instant matter, it appears from record that regarding an incident dated 22.08.2022, the wife of applicant No.1 has lodged a first information report against opposite party No.2 and his brother on 23.08.2022 for offences under Section - 352, 325, 504 I.P.C.. Regarding same incident, the opposite party No.2 has lodged the impugned complaint, as a cross case. It is apparent that in the alleged incident, both the sides have sustained injuries. It is well settled that at this stage, matter cannot be examined meticulously. The version of complainant is supported by his medical examination report as well as by the witnesses examined under Section - 202 Cr.P.C.. As both the parties have sustained injuries, several question of facts are involved, which can only be determined by the Trial Court. The submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicants call for determination of 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, this Court does not find it to be a case which can be determined or gone into in an application under Section 528 BNSS. Accordingly, the prayer as made above is hereby refused. 9. However, it is directed that in case applicants appear/surrender before the trial court concerned within a period of three weeks from today and apply for bail, their bail application shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with settled law. For a period of three weeks from today or till the applicants appear/surrender before the court concerned, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants. 10. The application under Section 528 BNSS is disposed of in above terms. Order Date :- 21.3.2025 S Rawat Digitally signed by :- SHOBHIT RAWAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad