Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:140939 Court No. - 71 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 18901 of 2025 Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Rao @ Sanjay Rao Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anurag Vajpeyi,Praveen Kumar Singh 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. This application u/s 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as 'BNSS') has been filed for quashing of the entire proceedings, including charge-sheet dated 31.08.2019 as well as summoning order dated 23.01.2025, of Case No. 3796 of 2019 (State Vs. Sanjay Rao), arising out of Case Crime No.854 of 2017, under Sections 386, 506 IPC, P.S.- Baghpat, District- Baghpat, pending in the court of C.J.M., Baghpat. 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and no prima-facie case is made out against him. Applicant is not named in the first information report, which was lodged against user of mobile phone no. 7860595544. Learned counsel submitted that involvement of applicant has been shown on the basis of statement of co- accused. Learned counsel has referred facts of the matter and submitted that even if the prosecution version is believed as such, no delivery of any property has taken place and thus no case under Section 386 IPC is made out. In this connection learned counsel has relied upon case of Salib alias Shalu alias Salim Vs. State of U.P. and Others 2023 SCC OnLine SC 947. 4. Learned AGA has opposed the application and submitted that in view of material collected during investigation, a prima-facie case is made out against applicant. It was submitted that whether the offence under Section 386 IPC is made out or any other related offence is made out, that can be considered by the trial Court at the stage of charge but no case for quashing of impugned proceedings is made out. 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 the informant has lodged first information report, alleging that he is an Ex-MLA and that his brother was working as contractor in Railway Department. It was alleged that on 22.09.2017 a person made a call from the mobile no.7860595544 and threatened to pay ransom (rangdari). During investigation, it was found that said mobile phone was used by applicant in extending extortion threat to the informant and his brother. In view of facts of the matter, various questions of facts are involved. Whether offence under Section 386 IPC is made out or any other related offence is made out, that can be considered by the trial Court at the stage of charge but considering facts of the matter no case for quashing of impugned proceedings is made out. Hence, the prayer sought above is hereby refused. 8. However, it is directed that in case applicant moves an application for discharge before the trial court concerned within a period of two weeks from today, the same shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law by the court concerned. It is further directed that for a period of two weeks from today and in case such an application for discharge is filed within the aforesaid period, till the disposal of discharge application, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant, provided the applicant cooperates in early disposal of discharge application. 9. With the aforesaid observations, the application u/s 528 BNSS is disposed of. Order Date :- 19.8.2025 'SP'/- Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad