HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 20214 of 2025 Court No. - 92 HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. and perused the record. 3. The instant application has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.4474 of 2025, Computerized No.27604 of 2025 (State vs. Saleem & Others), arising out of Case Crime No.126 of 2024, under Sections 147, 504, 505 (2) I.P.C., Police Station Bilari, District Moradabad as well as charge-sheet No.131 of 2024 dated 29.03.2024 and cognizance order dated 25.04.2025. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that in the present case, the allegation against the applicants is that, on 07.03.2024, applicant No.1 along with four or five other persons, created obstruction in worship and Ramayan Pujan at the local temple during the Shiv Barat and also threatened the informant with dire consequences. He next submits that in the FIR, only applicant no.1, Saleem was named. However, subsequently, four other persons, namely, Mohd. Waseem, Naseem, Mohd. Yunish @ Munna, and Mazid, were also implicated by the informant, and a charge sheet has been filed against them in the said case. He next submits that the present case is a counterblast to an earlier FIR lodged at the instance of applicant no. 1 against the informant in Case Crime No. 463 of 2020, Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mohammad Danish, Ved Prakash Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Saleem And 4 Others .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) under Section 385 IPC, Police Station Bilari, District Moradabad, dated 17.09.2020. In that case, applicant no.1 had alleged that the present informant had extorted money from him on the pretext of deleting his name from criminal case registered under Sections 363 and 366 IPC at Police Station Bilari, and had subsequently demanded some more money in the name of the local police. It is lastly submits that as many as five persons of the locality have filed affidavits in support of the applicants’ version, stating that no such incident, as alleged in the FIR, ever occurred. 5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. submits that a clear cognizable offence is made out against the applicants as per the FIR version and the statements of witnesses recorded by the Investigating Officer during investigation, and on that basis, a charge sheet has been submitted against the applicants. 6. Considering the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and the material on record, I find that it would be not in the fitness of things to invoke the power under Section 528 BNSS in the present case, as a cognizable offence is made out on the basis of the FIR version and the evidence collected during investigation. 7. In view of above, it is provided that applicants are permitted to move their discharge applications within one month from today and in case any such applications are being filed, same shall be heard and decided expeditiously after hearing the parties, in accordance with law. 8. Till the aforesaid period of one months and during pendency of discharge application, no coercive steps shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case. 9. In case of failure on the part of applicants in moving the discharge applications within the aforesaid period, they will not be entitled to the benefit of this order. 10. With above observations, this application stands disposed of. September 17, 2025 Amit NA528 No. 20214 of 2025 2 (Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.) Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad