Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:91339 Court No. - 71 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 18217 of 2025 Applicant :- Manendra Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Lavkush Kumar Bhatt Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The present application under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred as 'BNSS') has been filed for quashing of the entire proceedings, including summoning order dated 04.04.2025, of Complaint Case No. 777 of 2023, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 406 I.P.C., Police Station Maudarwaza, District Farrukhabad, pending in the court of A.C.J.M.-Ist, Farrukhabad. 3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the impugned complaint has been lodged by the opposite party No. 2 / complainant, making false and baseless allegations. The alleged sale-deed of the disputed property was executed by the wife of complainant in favour of her daughter Pushpanjali (wife of applicant) and that applicant is a witness on the said sale-deed. Both the parties are residing in the same premises. It was submitted that the younger daughter of the complainant had married against the wishes of the complainant but later on she became close to the complainant and the impugned complaint has been lodged by the complainant due to that reason. The complainant has not sustained any injury. Learned counsel has referred the statements of complainant, recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C., and of witnesses recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and submitted that no prima facie case is made out against the applicant and that the impugned proceedings are malicious and thus, liable to be quashed. 4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and submitted that the opposite party No. 2 / complainant has two daughters and his wife has executed sale-deed of the disputed property in favour of her elder daughter Pushpanjali. It was stated that applicant and said Pushpanjali have abused and assaulted the complainant and he was turned out from his home however, with the intervention of some other persons, applicant and his wife have allowed the complainant to reside in the said house/premises. 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 judgment 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 the applicant is son-in-law of opposite party No.2 / complainant. The main allegation of complainant is that his wife has executed a sale-deed of the disputed property in favour of elder daughter Pushpanjali and after that applicant and said Pushpanjali have assaulted the complainant and even they have turned the complainant out from the said property. The complainant has supported this version in his statement, recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. The version of complainant was further supported by witnesses, examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicant call for determination on questions of fact which may be adequately adjudicated upon only by the trial court and even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into only 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 under Section 528 BNSS. 8. After considering arguments raised by learned counsel for parties and perusing the impugned complaint and the materials in support of the same, no case for quashing of impugned proceedings is made out. Accordingly, the prayer as made above is hereby refused. 9. However, it is directed that in case applicant moves an application for discharge 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. For a period of three weeks from today and in case such an application is moved within the aforesaid period, till the disposal of such application, no coercive action shall be taken against applicant, provided applicant co-operates in early disposal of the discharge application. 10. The application under Section 528 BNSS is disposed of in above terms. Order Date :- 28.5.2025 Anand Digitally signed by :- ANAND VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad