Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:114088 Court No. - 53 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 11987 of 2025 Applicant :- Brijesh Kumar Alias Brijesh Kumar Dhuria And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ravi Kant Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record. The instant application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been filed seeking quashing of the entire criminal proceedings of Case No. 1437 of 2009 (State vs. Brijesh Kumar and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 348 of 2007, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 504, 506, 452, 342, 308 I.P.C., Police Station- Phoolpur, District- Allahabad, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate IV, Allahabad. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that on the basis of order passed by the leaned Magistrate in an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. in respect of the incident dated 03.10.2007 at about 11:00 am, FIR has been lodged in presence of respondent no.2 against the applicants and four other persons on 09.12.2007. In the present case, three injured Raj Kumar aged about 13 years, Smt. Phulpati aged about 70 years, Smt. Manju aged about 20 years and informant Dukhi, aged about 80 years, are shown as injured and the injury report has been annexed as Annexure No.2 of the affidavit. On the basis of x-ray report of injured Dukhi, in which, fracture of the parietal bone of skull detected, the case proceeded under Section 308 IPC. The police submitted a final report in favour of the persons after conclusion of investigation. However, informant filed protest petition filed in the said final report, which was treated as complaint and Magistrate summoned the accused persons in the said complaint case in the said trial for the aforesaid charges. Feeling aggrieved by the order of learned Magistrate treating the protest petition as complaint, the informant filed a criminal revision against the said summoning order before the Court of Sessions, which was registered as Criminal Revision No.31 of 2009. The said criminal revision was allowed and the summoning order dated 20.10.2008 passed by the learned Magistrate was modified to the extent that the case was directed to be registered as a State case and to be prosecuted by the State. After passing of this order, the order passing revisional order dated 24.01.2009, the Special CJM registered the case as a State case by order dated 05.02.2009 and passed summoning order on 25.03.2009 against the accused persons. As per order sheet filed as Annexure-2 to the present petition, bailable warrants were issued against the applicants and co-accused, the accused persons were not enlarged on bail. He next submits that the true fact is that on 03.10.2007 at 11.00 am, the opposite party no. 2 intentionally entered in the agricultural field of the applicant no.1 through his Tractor, which caused loss to the crops of onion. When the applicant no.2 raised his complaint before him then he called his family members and other co-accused persons and threatened and when the applicant no. 1 came there after hearing the noise of his son then the opposite party no. 2 along with other co-accused persons also threatened him to implicate him in false case. From perusal of the records it appears that there is dispute relating to abadi land and the dispute is purely civil in nature hence Sections 147, 148, 323, 504, 506, 452, 342, 308, IPC is not made out in this case but nothing has been considered by the I/C Sessions Judge Allahabad while passing the order against the applicants. The entire prosecution story may be taken to be true on its face value though not admitted for only sake of argument even then no offence under Sections 147, 148, 323, 504, 506, 452, 342, 308, IPC is made out against the applicant because the medical report does not support the allegation. The present criminal proceedings initiated by the opposite party no. 2 against the applicants are nothing but a malicious prosecution and the continuations of present criminal proceedings against the applicants are nothing but abuse of the process of the court. Per contra, learned AGA submitted that there are as many as three injured persons and all have suffered substantial injuries. The complainant Dukhi has suffered fracture in his skull bone as is evident from his x-ray report. The police did not lodge the FIR at initial stage and therefore, the complainant has no other option but to move the court concerned, in which, application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been filed. Thereafter, the FIR has been lodged in the present case as alleged. The offences are made out on the basis of FIR version and evidence produce in support of the protest petition in the case to quash the proceedings. In view of the material on record, it cannot be said that no offence is made out in the case. Are the proceedings of trial court are abuse of process of law? The proposed defence of accused cannot be taken into consideration at this stage. I have also gone through the order of revisional court on the basis of which subsequent proceedings were drawn by learned Magistrate. I find no irregularity or illegality in the order passed by the revisional court, the present application under Section 528 BNSS is nothing but an attempt to delay the proceedings of trial court, which are pending since year 2009. I find no ground to quash the revisional order passed by the In-charge Sessions Judge on facts and grounds mentioned in the present petition. Application is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. However, keeping in view the prayer made on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioner at the end of his submissions, it is directed that if applicants surrender before the concerned Court below within two weeks from today and apply for regular bail, their bail applications shall be decided expeditiously by the courts below in accordance with law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another, reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 922. Order Date :- 15.7.2025 Priya Digitally signed by :- PRIYA KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad