Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:73529 Court No. - 52 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 10802 of 2025 Applicant :- Jakir And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Deep Chandra Joshi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mukesh Joshi Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J. 1. Heard Sri D.C. Joshi, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Amit Singh Chauhan, learned AGA-I for the State, Sri Mukesh Joshi, learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 and perused the record. 2. The applicants have preferred the instant application challenging proceedings of Special Case No. 69 of 2025, State v. Jakir and others, CNR No. UPMO 01000431/2025 pending in the court of Special Judge SC/ST (PA) Act, Moradabad arising out of Case Crime No. 279 of 2024, under Sections 352, 333, 271 & 272 B.N.S.S. 2023 and 3(2)va, 3(1) dha & & 3(2)(5a) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Bhojpur,District Moradabad as well as charge-sheet dated 19.07.2024 and cognizance order dated 16.01.2025. 3. Brief facts of the case are that a first information report was lodged by O.P. No. 2 on 08.07.2024 at 22:21 hours against the applicants under Sections 352, 333, 271, 272 of BNSS, 2023 and 3(2)(va), 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, against two named accused persons who are the applicants in the present case, with the allegation that on 06.07.2024 at 08:30 a.m. when the O.P. No. 2 was sitting on the terrace, for having food, the applicants who reside in the neighbourhood started burning garbage (e-kachra) due to which smoke pollution inflamed causing trouble to O.P. No. 2 in breathing. The O.P. No. 2 requested Zakir not to burn garbage (e-kachra), whereafter the applicants refused hurling abusive language, entered the informant's house and misbehaved with him and intended to beat him. They also threatened the informant saying that their relatives are high positioned leaders of Samajwadi Party and he could do nothing against them. It is also alleged that the accused persons are engaged in the business of burning e- kachra, to which the informant had previously also objected but they do not care to any request. Today also the informant's condition deteriorated because of applicant's act and if they do not stop to do so, any untoward incident may happen, therefore, the FIR has been lodged. After investigation a charge-sheet has been submitted and the applicants have been summoned, hence, the present petition. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the first information report has been lodged with false and frivolous allegations due to ulterior motive. Caste indicative words have not been specified in the version of FIR. No such incident took place. From the statements of charge-sheet witnesses also it is clear that no such incident had taken place. He further submits that even if it is presumed that the applicants entered the house of O.P. No. 2 and used caste indicative language, they are not in public view, therefore, no offence under the relevant sections is made out. 5. Learned A.G.A., on the other hand, submits that after investigation charge-sheet was submitted on 19.07.2024, after which some report was called as per Section 90 of BNSS 2023 and statements of other witnesses were recorded from 10.10.2024 onwards and bonds as required under Section 192 BNSS, 2023 were taken from such persons, after considering which the applicants have been summoned by order dated 16.01.2025. 6. Learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 submits that considering the statements of Jabul S/o Zumma and Israr S/o Ahmad Hasan, offence under the relevant Sections is made out. Caste indicative words as used have been specified in the statements of O.P. No. 2 as well as other witnesses. The incident is proved. He further submits that after submission of charge-sheet on 19.07.2024, a report was called which also mentions that there was no permission for burning e-kachra or carrying out any such business. 7. This Court finds that the submissions made by the applicants' learned 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. 8. This Court finds that the submissions made by the applicants' learned 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 applicant 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 0 Supreme (SC) 454, (vii) Nallapareddy Sridhar Reddy Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.; 2020 0 Supreme (SC) 45, and lastly (viii) Rajeev Kaurav Vs. Balasahab & Others; 2020 0 Supreme (SC) 143. 9. 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. 10. In view of the above, no interference is called for. The prayer for quashing the impugned charge-sheet and cognizance order is refused, as I do not see any abuse of the court's process at this pre- trial stage. 11. The present application has no merit and is, accordingly, rejected. Order Date :- 7.5.2025 DS Digitally signed by :- DIGAMBER SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad