HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 23258 of 2025 Court No. - 92 HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and the learned AGA for the State-respondent. 2. This instant application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed seeking quashing of the entire proceedings of the case based upon charge sheet dated 15.08.2024 and cognizance order dated 21.01.2025 arising out of Case Crime No. 272 of 2024, under Sections 353, 332, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Sadar Bazar, District Shahjahanpur. 3. The allegation against the applicants is that when the team of electricity department went to carry out inspection/ checking user of electricity by unlawful means and to recover the dues, the applicants along with other persons attacked on the team members and caused physical injuries to them and thereby not only committed offence of physical assault but also obstructed the public servants in discharge of their duties. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that as far as the applicant no. 1 is concerned, Annexure -2 to the affidavit indicates that the name of some other person was scored out and name of the applicant no.1 was written on the disconnection memo and as far as electricity dues are concerned, the same was only to the tune of Rs. 7,208/- and, therefore, no offence has been committed. As regards the allegation of causing physical injuries to Shakeel is concerned, submission is that though causing forehead injury was alleged in the FIR, Shakeel in his statement before Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Haseen Ahmad, Saurabh Basu, Sipte Husain Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Farzan Ahmad and 2 others .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and another .....Opposite Party(s) the Investigating Officer stated that he had not got his medical examination conducted and that he did not suffer any serious injury on forehead. 5. Learned AGA opposes the prayer and submits that since the public functionaries were obstructed in lawful discharge of their duties and they were attacked during that course, mere contradiction in the statement of the injured would not rule out of happening evident and, hence, the disputed questions of fact being involved in the matter, no interference is warranted. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the Court is of the view that meager or larger amount of dues towards electricity as indicated in Annexure-2 to the affidavit cannot be a ground for ruling out of occurrence of the incident committing physical assault. As far as the statement of Shakeel is concerned, merely because he has stated that he did not suffer serious injury on his forehead, the same, in itself, is not a conclusive proof to the fact that no incident had occurred on that day. There appears to be no justification for officials of the electricity department to lodge FIR against the innocent persons. All the material collected by the I.O. shall be subject to evidence to be led before the trial court and in view of the settled proposition of law that controversy involved in a criminal trial cannot be prejudged at pre-trial stage, the Court is not inclined to interfere with the matter. 7. The application has no merit and is, accordingly, rejected, leaving it open for the applicants to avail other statutory remedies in accordance with law. September 16, 2025 AKShukla/- NA528 No. 23258 of 2025 2 (Kshitij Shailendra,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANIL KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad