Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:105243 Court No. - 71 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 17508 of 2025 Applicant :- Shiv Prakash Singh And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Jitendra Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pushpendra Kumar Yadav Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. This application under Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as BNSS) has been filed for quashing of entire proceedings, including charge sheet dated 08.10.2018 and cognizance / summoning order dated 01.07.2024, of Case No. 1050 of 2018 (State Vs. Shiv Prakash and Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 203 of 2018, under Sections - 323, 447, 504, 506 I.P.C.., Police Station - Balua, District- Chandauli, pending before the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) / F.T.C.-First Judicial Magistrate, Chandauli. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for applicants that applicants are innocent and no prima facie case is made out against them. Applicant no.1 and opposite party no.2 / informant are real brothers and that there was dispute between the parties over the Management of degree college being run by "Akshar Seva Ashram Trust". The father of applicant no.1 has established three societies for running two degree colleges but the opposite party no.2 by taking advantage of fiduciary relationship created two Trusts, namely, Akshar Seva Ashram Trust and Narayan Foundation Trust and by way of forged resolutions he grabbed one of the degree college, namely, Jatadhari Mahavidyalaya . The University, namely, Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidyapeeth, Varanasi has cancelled the approval of Committee of Management of opposite party no.2, who was running degree college through "Akshar Seva Ashram Trust". The said orders of concerned authority of University were challenged by opposite party no.2 before this Court but no interim order was passed in favour of opposite party no.2. It was submitted that the first information report of this case has been lodged in order to settle score in dispute of Management and as a counter blast to the cases lodged by the father of applicant no.1. Injuries shown to the informant are false and fictitious. No such incident has taken place as alleged by the informant in the first information report. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that impugned proceedings are malicious and counter blast and thus, liable to be quashed. 4. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 have opposed the application and submitted that in the alleged incident, on 09.08.2018 at 10:00 AM when informant has gone at his land, the applicants-accused have abused and assaulted him with 'lathi' and sticks and resultantly he has sustained injuries. It was submitted that in the medical examination report of informant four injuries have been shown to the informant and prosecution version is supported by the witness Ramesh Singh and Bal Kishun. It was submitted that 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. 7. In the instant matter perusal of record shows that opposite party no.2 / informant has alleged in the first information report that on 09.08.2018 at 10:00 AM when he has gone at his land, he was abused and assaulted by the applicants-accused and resultantly he has sustained injuries. The prosecution version is supported by injury report of informant as well as by the statements of eye witnesses. Though it appears from record that there is dispute between the parties on account of Management of two degree colleges and various civil litigations as well as criminal cases are pending between them, however in these proceedings under Section - 528 BNSS, it cannot be held that impugned proceedings have been instituted with malafide or that no such incident, as alleged in the first information report, has taken place. 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. The application under Section 528 BNSS lacks merits and thus, liable to be dismissed. 9. Accordingly, the application u/s 528 BNSS is dismissed. Order Date :- 4.7.2025 S Rawat Digitally signed by :- SHOBHIT RAWAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad