Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:142878 Court No. - 71 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 18791 of 2025 Applicant :- Harsh Alias Golu And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Srivastava,Sunil Kumar Saroj Counsel for Opposite Party :- Ayush Kaushik,G.A. Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed in Court today, is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for applicants, learned counsel for the informant / opposite party No. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. 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 17.02.2025 and cognizance / summoning order dated 21.02.2025, of criminal case no. 1644 of 2025, arising out of case crime no. 377 of 2024, under Sections 305, 331(4), 317(2), 112 BNS, P.S. Nauchandi, District Meerut, pending in the court of A.C.J.M., Court No. 1, Meerut. 4. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicants that the first information report has been lodged by the opposite party No. 2 / informant, making false and baseless allegations and that no prima facie case is made out against the applicants. In fact applicant No. 1 Harsh @ Golu and daughter of informant have performed love marriage against the wishes of informant. Later on informant has also accepted the said marriage. The allegations that applicants have committed theft are wholly false. In fact the daughter of informant has brought the jewellery and cash from her house and the same was shown recovered from the applicants. It was submitted that the daughter of informant, who has married with applicant No. 1, has filed an affidavit (supplementary affidavit), wherein she has clearly stated that she has performed marriage with applicant No. 1 with her own free will and the informant has also accepted the said marriage. After that the traditional marriage was also solemnized between them. Referring to affidavit of daughter of informant, it was submitted that the daughter of informant has brought jewellery and cash with her on the occasion of her marriage. Learned counsel has referred facts of the matter and submitted that the allegations levelled against the applicants are wholly false and no prima facie case is made out against them and thus, the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed. 5. Learned counsel for the informant / opposite party No. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State have opposed the application and submitted that there are allegations that applicants have committed theft from the house of informant. It was submitted that applicant No. 1 was having affair with daughter of informant and taking undue advantage of the same, jewellery and cash were stolen from the house of informant. It was further submitted that recovery of huge quantity of jewellery and cash from the applicants clearly shows that a prima facie case is made out. It was also submitted that during investigation no such version was brought into the notice of the police that the daughter of informant has taken away jewellery and cash from the house of informant. The defence version developed by the applicants cannot be considered at this stage and the same can only be examined during trial. 6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 7. 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. 8. In the instant matter perusal of record shows that the informant has lodged the first information report of this case on 27.12.2024 against unknown persons, alleging that on the night of 26.12.2024 some unknown persons have committed theft of jewellery and cash from his house. During investigation huge quantity of stolen jewellery and cash of Rs.8,02,340/- was recovered from the applicants. Merely because the daughter of informant was having some relationship with applicant No. 1 or that after incident she has married with him, the impugned proceedings cannot be quashed on that ground alone. The contention that as the applicant No. 1 has married with daughter of informant and he was falsely implicated due to this reason, cannot be considered at this stage and the same has to be decided during trial. It may be stated that applicants were not named in the first information report, which was lodged against unknown persons. If informant might have intention to falsely implicate the applicants, he would have named the applicants in the first information report itself. Further, as stated above, huge quantity of stolen jewellery and cash has been recovered from the applicants by the police while they were going to sell the same. 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. In the instant matter, in view of the allegations made in the first information report and the material collected during investigation, it cannot be said that no prima facie case is made out against the applicants. Hence, no case for quashing of impugned proceedings is made out and the present application under Section 528 BNSS lacks merit and thus, liable to be dismissed. 9. The application under Section 528 BNSS is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 19.8.2025 Anand Digitally signed by :- ANAND VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad