Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:117929 Court No. - 71 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 14609 of 2025 Applicant :- Rajendra Prasad Shukla Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Bipin Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Madan Mohan,Parmeshwar Yadav Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This application u/s 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as 'BNSS') has been filed with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings, including charge-sheet dated 21.01.2025 as well as cognizance / summoning order dated 09.04.2025, of Case No. 170 of 2025 (State Vs. Rajendra Prasad Shukla and others), arising out of Case Crime No.0557 of 2024, under Sections 131, 115(2), 352, 351(2), 110, 117(2) BNS, P.S.- Handia, District- Payagraj, pending in the court of A.C.J.M., Court No.8, Prayagraj. 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. In the first information report only the role of exhortation was assigned to the applicant and there is no such specific allegation that applicant has caused any injury to the injured persons. Regarding same incident, a first information report was also lodged by the son of applicant against opposite party no.2 and others. It was submitted that opposite party no.2 indulges in illegal occupation of public properties. In the alleged incident the son of applicant has sustained injuries. Learned counsel has referred statements of witnesses recorded during investigation and submitted that the allegations levelled against applicant are wholly false and impugned proceedings against applicant are liable to be quashed. 4. Learned AGA and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 have opposed the application and submitted that in the alleged incident, the informant has sustained serious injuries, including fracture, and other injured has also sustained injuries. Referring to statements of informant and other witnesses, it was submitted that a prima-facie case is made out against applicant. Statement of independent witnesses were referred and they have stated that applicant has also indulged in assaulting the injured persons. 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. In this connection, a reference may also be made to the case of R. Kalyani vs. Janak C. Mehta and Others, 2009 (1) SCC 516, Rupan Deol Bajaj vs. K.P.S. Gill (1995) SCC (Cri) 1059, Rajesh Bajaj vs. State of NCT of Delhi, (1999) 3 SCC 259 and Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd vs. Biological E Ltd. & Ors, 2000 SCC (Cri) 615. It has been held that if a prima facie case is made out disclosing ingredients of the offence, court should not quash the charge sheet/complaint. It is equally well settled that at this stage questions of fact cannot be examined and a mini trial cannot be held. 7. In the instant matter perusal of record shows that an incident has taken place on 08.09.2024 between the parties. In the said incident, both the parties have sustained injuries, including fractures. Both the parties have lodged cases against each other. In the instant case, the informant has made allegations that applicant was involved in the said incident. As both the parties have sustained injuries, thus various questions of facts are involved. The submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicant 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. 8. After considering arguments raised by learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned first information report and materials on record, no case for quashing of impugned proceedings is made out. Hence, the prayer sought above is hereby refused. 9. However, it is directed that in case applicant surrenders before the court concerned within a period of three weeks from today and applies for bail, his bail application shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with settled law. For a period of three weeks from today or till the applicant surrenders before the court concerned, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant in the aforesaid case. 10. With the aforesaid observations, the application u/s 528 BNSS is disposed of. Order Date :- 21.7.2025 'SP'/- Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad