Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:87085 Court No. - 71 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 15180 of 2025 Applicant :- Ravindra Kumar And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vipin Chandra Lal Counsel for Opposite Party :- Anurag Shukla,G.A. Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This application u/s 528 BNSS has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings, including summoning order dated 09.12.2024, of Complaint Case No. 331 of 2023 (Gopal Mohan v. Ravindra Kumar and others), under Sections 307, 323, 504, 506 of IPC, P.S.- Bakewar, District- Etawah, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.4, Etawah. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that impugned complaint has been lodged by the opposite party no.2 making false and baseless allegations. Applicants are government contractors and that regarding the incident dated 02.02.2023, the applicant no.1 has lodged a First Information Report against the son of opposite party no.2 and others and after that the impugned complaint has been lodged by the opposite party no.2 as a counterblast. The injuries shown to injured persons are simple in nature and they are manufactured. Learned counsel has referred statement of complainant and of witnesses and submitted that applicants have no motive at all to indulge in any such incident and that impugned impugned proceedings are malicious and counterblast and thus, liable to be quashed. 4. Learned AGA and learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2 have opposed the application and submitted that in the alleged incident, Complainant- Gopal Mohan and Mukund Tripathi have sustained injuries. The complainant has supported the case in his statement under Section 200 CrPC. The witnesses examined under Section 202 CrPC has also supported version of complainant. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that a prima facie case is made out against the applicants. 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 judgement 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, it appears from record that in the alleged incident dated 02.02.2023, both the parties have sustained injuries. Regarding that incident, applicant no.1 has lodged First Information Report under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506 IPC against son of complainant and others, and regarding the same incident, the opposite party no.2 has moved an application under Section 156(3) CrPC, which was registered as a complaint case and later on the applicants were summoned. In the medical examination report of complainant- Gopal Mohan, five injuries have been shown and similarly- five injuries have been shown to another injured- Mukund Tripathi. As both the parties have sustained injuries and thus, various questions of facts are involved. The opposite party no.2/complainant has put up a cross case regarding the incident. 8. In view of material on record, it can not be said that no prima- facie case is made out against applicants. The submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicants call for determination on questions of fact, which may adequately be discerned/adjudicated only by the trial court. Even the submissions made on point of law can also be more appropriately gone into 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 the 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. In view of material on record, no case for quashing of impugned proceedings or any other interference is made out. Hence, the present application under Section 528 BNSS is liable to be dismissed. 10. Accordingly, the application u/s 528 BNSS is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 21.5.2025/ Rama Kant Digitally signed by :- RAMA KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad