Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:49484 Court No. - 71 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 11013 of 2025 Applicant :- Rajendra And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Akhilesh Srivastava, Saksham Srivastava 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 B.N.S.S. has been filed for quashing of the entire proceedings, including summoning order dated 12.02.2025, of Complaint Case No. 296 of 2024 (Jugendra Singh Vs. Rajendra and Others), under Sections - 323, 325, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station - Gabhana, District - Aligarh, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Aligarh. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that regarding an incident dated 25.02.2020, the opposite party no.2 has lodged a non-cognizable report on 25.02.2020 under Section - 323 I.P.C. against applicants but no permission was sought under Section - 155 (2) Cr.P.C. for investigation. After that the opposite party no.2 has lodged a first information report on 05.05.2020 against applicants regarding the same incident. After investigation, police have submitted final report in favour of applicants. Meanwhile, the opposite party no.2 and others have assaulted the wife of applicant no.4 and others and in that regard the wife of applicant no.4 has lodged a first information report under Sections - 506, 504, 354, 323, 307, 452, 149, 148, 147 I.P.C. on 27.03.2022. When that first information report was lodged, the opposite party no.2 has preferred a protest petition, as a counter blast to the said case. Learned counsel has referred statement of injured and of witnesses and 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 regarding the incident in question, initially the opposite party no.2 has lodged a non-cognizable report but later on it was found that his cousin brother Ravi has sustained grievous injuries, including fracture, and thus, a first information report was lodged against the applicants on 05.05.2020 under Sections - 323, 325 I.P.C. Learned A.G.A. has referred medical examination report of injured and submitted that the injured has sustained grievous injures. The version of complainant is supported by the medical examination report of the injured person. As the first information report of this case was lodged before the first information report lodged by the wife of applicant no.4 thus, it could not be said that the impugned proceedings are malicious or counter blast. 5. 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 25.02.2020, initially the opposite party no.2 has lodged a non-cognizable report on the same day under Section - 323 I.P.C. against applicants. It is correct that there is nothing to show that the opposite party no.2 has moved any application under Section - 155 (2) Cr.P.C. but it was shown that on the basis of grievous injuries sustained by the injured Ravi, the opposite party no.2 has lodged first information report on 05.05.2020, under Sections - 323, 325 I.P.C. In view of these facts, the impugned proceedings cannot be quashed merely on the ground that no permission was sought under Section - 155 (2) Cr.P.C.. It appears that in the alleged incident injured Ravi has sustained grievous injuries. It is correct that after investigation, police have submitted final report and while that matter was pending, the wife of applicant no.4 has also lodged a first information report against opposite party no.2 and others and thereafter protest petition was preferred by the opposite party no.2 but that can also not be a ground for quashing of the impugned proceedings, particularly, when the injured has sustained grievous injuries. In view of material on record, it cannot be said that no prima facie case is made out against the applicants. 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 B.N.S.S. 9. 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 B.N.S.S. The application under Section - 528 B.N.S.S. lacks merit and thus, liable to be dismissed. 10. The application under Section - 528 B.N.S.S. is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 7.4.2025 S Rawat Digitally signed by :- SHOBHIT RAWAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad