Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:121633 Court No. - 71 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 24082 of 2025 Applicant :- Shailendra Kushwaha And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Arun Kumar Singh,Himanshu Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rama Pati Tripathi,Ravindra Singh Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for applicants, learned counsel for the informant / opposite party No. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. 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 14.09.2023 and cognizance / summoning order dated 18.04.2024, of criminal case no. 41342 of 2024, arising out of case crime no. 0306 of 2021, under Sections 420, 380, 427, 323, 504, 506, 448 IPC, P.S. Govind Nagar, District Kanpur Nagar, pending in the court of J.M., Court No. 4, Kanpur Nagar. 3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are innocent and no prima facie case is made out against them. It was submitted that applicants are tenant in the shop of opposite party No. 2 / informant and in that regard a case is pending before the civil court and an order of injunction has been passed in favour of the applicants. The allegations that applicants have trespassed into another shop of informant or committed theft are wholly false. It was pointed out that in her statement, the informant has stated that both the applicants are tenant in her shop. Referring to the facts of the matter, it was submitted that no prima facie case is made out against the applicants and that the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed. 4. Learned counsel for the informant / opposite party No. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State have opposed the application and argued that informant was a 80 years old lady and her all sons have passed away. It was submitted that in one of the shop i.e. shop No. 5 applicant No. 2 Sunil Kushwaha is a tenant but by taking advantage of the condition of informant, the applicants have trespassed into her another shop i.e. shop No. 4 and they have taken possession there and that various households articles of informant were stolen. It was further submitted that in view of the allegations made in the first information report and the material collected during investigation, a prima facie case is made out against the 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 perusal of record shows that the informant has made allegations in the first information report that she is a 80 years old lady and her all sons have passed away and that only her daughter-in-law and some niece were residing with her. It was also alleged that applicant No. 2 is a tenant in shop No. 5 of the informant but applicants have trespassed into shop No. 4, belonging to the informant, and various household articles, including cooler, inverter, battery and furniture of informant were stolen. 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, a prima facie case is made out, hence no case for quashing of impugned proceedings is made out. Accordingly, the prayer as made above is hereby refused. 8. However, it is directed that in case applicants appear / surrender before the trial court concerned within a period of three weeks from today and apply for bail, their application shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with settled law. 9. The application under Section 528 BNSS is disposed of in above terms. Order Date :- 24.7.2025 Anand Digitally signed by :- ANAND VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad