Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:82008 Court No. - 71 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 10872 of 2025 Applicant :- Ankit Yadav And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Awadh Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Manish Kumar,Rajeev Chaddha Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. This application under Section - 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as BNSS) has been filed for quashing of the entire proceedings, including summoning order dated 12.03.2025, of Session Case No. 1852 of 2024 (Satyam Kumar Yadav @ Rajaram Vs. Ankit Yadav and Others), under Sections - 309(4), 115(2), 352 B.N.S., Police Station - Rura, District - Kanpur Dehat, pending in the court of Special Judge (D.A.A.), Kanpur Dehat. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that regarding an incident dated 21.10.2024 applicant no.2 has lodged a first information report against four named persons and some unknown persons for offence under Section - 191(2), 191(3), 190, 110, 126(2), 352, 125, 324(4) B.N.S.. After seven days of the same, the opposite party party no.2 has lodged impugned complaint against applicants as a counter blast. The injuries shown to the complainant Satyam Kumar Yadav are false and manufactured. It was stated that during investigation of the case lodged by the applicant no.2, involvement of opposite party no.2 was also revealed and he has already been charge-sheeted and his bail was rejected by the court of Session. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that impugned proceedings are counter blast and injuries shown to the injured are manufactured and thus, the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed. 5. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has has opposed the application and submitted that in the alleged incident the complainant has sustained several injuries. The complainant has moved an application under Section - 173 (4) BNSS, which was registered as a complaint case. The case of the complainant is cross version of the case lodged by the applicant no.2. As the complainant has sustained injuries thus, several questions of facts are involved and thus, no case for quashing of impugned proceedings is made out. 6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 7. 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. 8. In the instant matter, perusal of record shows that regarding an incident dated 21.10.2024, applicant no.2 has lodged a first information report on the same day against four named persons and some other persons and during investigation of the said case involvement of opposite party no.2 was also revealed. Regarding same incident the opposite party no.2 has lodged the impugned complaint. In the alleged incident, the complainant has sustained injuries and thus, various questions of facts are involved, which can only be decided during trial. 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. 9. After considering arguments raised by learned counsel for parties and perusing the impugned complaint and the materials in support of the same, no case for quashing of impugned proceedings is made out, hence 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 BNSS is disposed of in above terms. Order Date :- 17.5.2025 S Rawat Digitally signed by :- SHOBHIT RAWAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad