Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:48401 Court No. - 71 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 10891 of 2025 Applicant :- Satyaveer And 7 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ashutosh Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This application under Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as B.N.S.S.) has been preferred against the summoning order dated 10.02.2025, passed by Civil Judge (J.D.)/F.T.C., Sambhal at Chandausi in Complaint Case No.1712 of 2024 (Ali Mohammad Vs. Satyaveer and Others), under Sections 324, 354, 504 I.P.C., Police Station- Baniather, District- Sambhal, pending before the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.)/F.T.C., Sambhal at Chandausi. 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that allegations levelled against the applicants are wholly false and no prima-facie case is made out against them. Regarding an incident dated 08.03.2023 applicant no.3 Virendra has lodged a first information report under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 506 IPC against opposite party no.2 and others and after one month the opposite party no.2 has lodged a first information report against applicants. After investigation, police have submitted closure report in favour of applicants. The opposite party no.2 has preferred a protest petition, which was registered as a complaint case and thereafter applicants have been summoned. It was submitted that the alleged injury shown to the opposite party no.2 is false and manufactured, whereas several persons have sustained injuries from the side of applicants. In injury report, one lacerated wound and one traumatic injury have been shown to the opposite party No.2 and no X-ray of opposite party no.2 has been conducted. It was submitted that no prima-facie case is made out against the applicants. 4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and submitted that the complainant has sustained two injuries and his version is supported by 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 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. 7. It is well settled that at the stage of issuing process under Section 204 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate is mainly concerned with the allegations made in the complaint and evidence led in support of the same. The Magistrate has to be satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for proceedings against the accused. The issuance of process should not be mechanical, rather it must be based on the allegations made in the complaint and evidence led in support of the same. Though, at the stage of issuance of process to the accused the Magistrate is not required to record detailed order but Magistrate has to be prima-facie satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against accused. 8. In the instant matter, perusal of record shows that regarding an incident dated 08.03.2023 the applicant no.3 has lodged first information report on 09.03.2023, and regarding same incident the opposite party no.2 has lodged a cross first information report against applicants. In the case lodged by the opposite party no.2 police have submitted final report and thereafter protest petition of opposite party no.2 was registered as a complaint case. It appears from record that in the alleged incident both the parties have sustained injuries and opposite party no.2 has put his counter version. Thus, several factual aspects of the matter are required to be considered. The submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicants 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. 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 B.N.S.S. 9. After considering arguments raised by learned counsel for the 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 B.N.S.S. Accordingly, the prayer as made above is hereby refused. 10. However, it is directed that in case applicants appear/ surrender before the 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 surrender before the court below, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case. 11. The application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. is disposed of in above terms. Order Date :- 5.4.2025 'SP'/- Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad