Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:45606 Court No. - 71 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 10515 of 2025 Applicant :- Sonu Alias Devendra Kumar Jaiswal And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Brij Bhushan Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for applicants and the learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This application u/s 528 BNSS has been filed for quashing of the entire proceedings, including impugned summoning order dated 26.04.2024, of Criminal Case No. 732 of 2021 (Pratima Vs. Sonu Jaiswal and Others), under Sections 452, 504, 323, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Saidpur, District Ghazipur, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Saidpur, Ghazipur. 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the husband of opposite party no. 2 has executed a sale-deed of the disputed property in favour of applicant no. 3 and that impugned complaint has been lodged by the opposite party no. 2 making false and baseless allegations. If opposite party no. 2 has any grievance then he could have filed a civil suit for cancellation of said sale-deed. The husband of opposite party no. 2 has not been examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Referring to the facts of the matter, it was submitted that no prima facie case is made out. 4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and submitted that the husband of opposite party no. 2 is a drunkard and applicants have got executed a sale-deed of his property in favour of applicant no. 3. The complainant has clearly stated that on 26.04.2021 all the applicants trespassed into her house and assaulted the complainant and her children and they have dragged her out of the house by catching her hairs and they have illegally taken possession over the house, whereas her household articles are also lying inside the house. 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, perusal of the record shows that the opposite party no. 2 has lodged impugned complaint against applicants alleging that on 26.04.2021 applicants / accused trespassed in to her house, did abusing and assaulted the complainant and her children. She has further alleged that they have dragged her by hairs and her children were also assaulted and that she was dispossessed from the house, whereas her household articles are lying inside the house. The complainant has supported the said version in the statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. It appears that the husband of complainant has executed a sale-deed of part of disputed property in favour of applicant no. 3 but that does not give any right to applicants to assault the complainant and her children and to drag the complainant by hairs and to forcibly take possession over the property. The version of complainant is supported by the statements of children of complainant recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. 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, 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 in the aforesaid case. 10. The application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. is disposed of in above terms. Order Date :- 2.4.2025 SK Srivastava Digitally signed by :- SAILESH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad