Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:138005 Court No. - 71 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 21134 of 2025 Applicant :- Ravi Kumar And 18 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ashutosh Mishra,Qazi Vakil Ahmad,Shailendra Kumar Ojha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ganesh Mani Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 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 15.01.2025 as well as cognizance / summoning order dated 01.03.2025, of Case Crime No.802 of 2024, under Sections 352, 324(4), 125, 131, 109, 191(2) BNS, P.S.- Chakeri, District- Kanpur Nagar, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar. 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are innocent and no prima-facie case is made out against them. In fact, the informant's party has assaulted the applicants and in that regard a first information report was lodged by opposite party no.2 and others. Four persons have sustained injuries from the side of applicants. It was submitted that applicant nos.1 & 2, namely, Ravi Kumar and Kuldeep Thakur have already been granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Learned counsel has referred first information report and material on record and submitted that no prima-facie case is made out and the allegations levelled against applicants are false. 4. Learned AGA and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 have opposed the application and submitted that there are clear allegations that applicants have assaulted the informant and others and in the said incident informant has sustained as many as 10 injuries and thus, a prima-facie case is made out against applicants. 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 it appears that two groups, allegedly belonging to transgenders, have indulged in a fight with each other on the issue of their respective areas. Both the sides have sustained injuries. Informant has sustained several injuries and first information report was lodged against applicants on 06.12.2024 at 01:25 hours after that the cross first information report was lodged from the side of applicants on 07.12.2024. In view of material on record, it can not be said that no prima-facie case is made out. 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. 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 528 BNSS. 8. After considering arguments raised by learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned first information report and materials on record, no case for quashing of impugned proceedings is made out. Hence, the prayer sought above is hereby refused. 9. However, it is directed that in case the applicants, who are not on bail, surrender before the court concerned within a period of three weeks from today and apply for bail, their bail application shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with settled law. For a period of three weeks from today or till the applicants surrender before the court concerned, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case. 10. With the aforesaid observations, the application u/s 528 BNSS is disposed of. Order Date :- 13.8.2025 'SP'/- Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad