Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:105637 Court No. - 71 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 16594 of 2025 Applicant :- Bharat Singh And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mukesh Kumar,Nikil Pathak Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants 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 25.05.2012 as well as cognizance order dated 21.07.2014 & summoning order dated 24.11.2014, of Case No. 3632 of 2012 (State Vs. Bharat Singh and others), arising out of Case Crime No.443 of 2011, under Sections 420, 506, 467, 468, 471 IPC, P.S.- Khatauli, District- Muzaffarnagar, pending in the court of Civil Judge (J.D.) / F.T.C.-Ist, Muzaffarnagar. 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that no prima-facie case is made out against applicants and that the dispute between the parties is civil in nature. Applicants are bona-fide purchaser of the disputed property. It was stated that in fact one Dheer Singh and Dharam Singh were owner of the land in question and applicants have purchased the disputed land from them. The seller has not been made accused. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that the allegations levelled against applicants are false. It is further submitted that applicants are facing proceedings of the case since the year 2014 but no progress has been made in the proceedings so far. 4. Learned AGA has opposed the application and submitted that in view of allegations made in first information report and materials on record, a prima-facie case is made out against 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. 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 there are allegations to the effect that disputed land was in the name of Bahadur Singh and after his death his wife and daughter have executed sale-deed of the said property of the informant and thereafter a forged sale-deed of the disputed land was executed in favour of applicants. It may further be stated that applicants are appearing in the proceedings since 2017 but this application under Section 528 BNSS has been preferred after about seven years and no explanation for delay has been shown. Considering allegations made in the first information report, no case for quashing of impugned proceedings is made out. 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. 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, considering the facts that applicants are facing the proceedings since 2014 and even the charges have not been framed, the trial Court is directed to expedite the proceedings and to conclude the same as early as possible. It is further directed that applicants would be at liberty to raise their grievance at the time of hearing on charge or they may file an application for discharge and in case any application for discharge is filed by the applicants before the trial court concerned within a period of three weeks from today, the same shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law by the court concerned. 10. With the aforesaid observations, the application u/s 528 BNSS is disposed of. Order Date :- 7.7.2025 'SP'/- Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad