HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 18751 of 2025 Court No. - 71 HON'BLE RAJ BEER SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned AGA for the State. 2. The present application under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as 'BNSS') has been filed for quashing of the entire proceedings, including charge-sheet dated 11.12.2023 as well as cognizance / summoning order dated 18.12.2023, of Case Crime No.786 of 2023, under Sections 386, 504, 506, 34 I.P.C., Police Station- Shahpur, District- Gorakhpur, pending in the court of A.C.J.M. (S.D.)- Ist, Gorakhpur. 3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and no prima facie case is made out against him. It was submitted out that earlier the opposite party no. 2 / informant has filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against the applicant, which was rejected by the court of C.J.M., Gorakhpur vide order dated 13.10.2023 and after that the first information report of this case was lodged in another police station. It is further submitted that there has been business related dispute between the accused and the husband of informant and that the allegations of extortion are wholly false and no prima facie case under Section 386 IPC is made out. In the charge-sheet only one public witness was shown and other witnesses were formal. After receipt of the charge-sheet, learned Magistrate has jurisdiction to remand back the matter to the police for further investigation but learned Magistrate has taken cognizance vide impugned order dated 18.12.2023. Learned counsel submitted that the Magistrate was bound by law to peruse the record and to pass an order on point summoning in accordance with law but learned Magistrate has not considered facts of the matter and position of law and no such conclusion was given that a case for summoning was made out. Referring to the facts of the matter, it was Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Omar Zamin, Sanjeev Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Vineet Kumar Singh Vikash Kumar Sinha .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) submitted that the impugned proceedings are malicious and thus, liable to be quashed. It was also submitted that an application under Section 528 BNSS can be preferred at any stage of the proceedings and there is no bar with regard to the same. 4. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 / informant have opposed the application and argued that the charges have already been framed against the applicant on 06.02.2024 and after that the statement of informant has been recorded before the trial court. The order by which charges have been framed against the applicant, has been challenged by the applicant. It was submitted that the present application under Section 528 BNSS is not maintainable at this stage. It is further submitted that in view of the allegations made in the first information report and the material collected during investigation, a prima facie case is made out against the applicant. It was further submitted by learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that in respect of similarly placed co-accused Rekha Singh, this Court has already refused her prayer for quashing of proceedings / charge-sheet & cognizance / summoning order and that case of applicant is also on similar footing. 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 applicant is facing trial NA528 No. 18751 of 2025 2 in the aforesaid case since the year 2023 and charges against the applicant have already been framed vide order dated 06.02.2024. There is nothing to show that applicant has challenged the order of framing of charge. Said order is not being impugned in this petition. The trial has already been commenced and statement of informant has been recorded before the trial court. At this stage evidence of informant, led before the trial court, cannot be appreciated by this Court as the same has to be considered by the trial court. It is correct that no specific period of limitation is prescribed for filing of an application under Section 528 BNSS but nevertheless it is well settled that such an application has to be filed within a reasonable time. 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. In the instant case, it is apparent that as the evidence of informant has already been recorded before the trial court and the order, by which charges have been framed against the applicant, is not been challenged. The application of similarly placed co-accused Rekha Singh seeking same prayer has already been dismissed and that case of applicant is also on similar footing. Considering entire attending facts, no case for invoking powers under Section 528 BNSS is made out. The application under Section 528 BNSS lacks merit and thus, liable to be dismissed. 8. The application under Section 528 BNSS is dismissed. August 19, 2025 'SP'/- NA528 No. 18751 of 2025 3 (Raj Beer Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad