Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:115721 Court No. - 71 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 22430 of 2025 Applicant :- Vijay Kumar And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mohan Lal Pandey,Narendra Kumar Shukla,Nishi Kant Chaturvedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. This application under Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as BNSS) has been filed for quashing of entire proceedings, including charge sheet dated 24.10.2024 as well as cognizance / summoning order dated 19.02.2025, of Criminal Case No. 4250 of 2025 (State Vs. Vishal and Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 45 of 2024, under Sections - 326-F B.N.S., Police Station - Madan Mohan Gate, District- Agra, pending before the Court of A.C.J.M.-IIIrd, Agra. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that first information report of this case was lodged by the opposite party no.2 against applicants making false and baseless allegations. The allegations that applicants have burnt the motor cycle of informant are wholly false and no prima facie case is made out. 4. It is further submitted that impugned summoning order dated 19.02.2025 is not a speaking and reasoned order. It was submitted that summoning order has to be reasoned and thus, on this ground also the impugned summoning order is liable to be quashed. In this regard, learned counsel for applicants has relied upon following case laws :- (i) Abdul Rasheed & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.; 2010 SCC Online All 2819; (ii) Sangam Kesarwani and 6 Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another; 2023:AHC:157261. 5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and submitted that in view of allegations made in the first information report and material collected during investigation, a prima-facie case is made out against applicants. It is further submitted that impugned summoning order has been passed by perusing the material on record. 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 the instant case, in view of allegations made in the first information report and material collected during investigation it cannot be said that no prima facie case is made out. 8. So far the issue of summoning is concerned, it is well settled that when in a case after investigation charge sheet is submitted, the Court concerned may take cognizance and summon the accused persons in accordance with law. Detail reasons are not required to be mentioned at the stage of summoning, however the summoning order must reflect application of judicial mind. In the instant case it has been mentioned in the impugned summoning order that first information report and the documents submitted along with report under Section - 173 Cr.P.C. were perused and on the basis of the same, cognizance was taken and applicants were summoned. Thus, it could not be said that impugned summoning order has been passed without application of judicial mind. So far the case of Abdul Rasheed (supra) is concerned, in that matter summoning order was passed on a printed proforma by filling the description of the case and thus, the said case law has no application in the present matter. In case of Sangam Kesarwani (supra), it has been held that in process of taking cognizance and issue of process to the accused, the Magistrate has to form an opinion that a prima facie case is made out against the accused. No such law has been laid down that in summoning order Magistrate has to mention detail reasons. In fact it is well settled that when cognizance is taken on the charge sheet, detail reasons are not required to be mentioned in the summoning order. In this connection, a reference may be made to the case of Bhushan Kumar & Another Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Another; AIR 2012 SC 1747 and Nupur Talwar Vs. CBI; 2013 AIR SCW 369. In case of Sangam Kesarwani (supra), the summoning order was quashed on the ground that same was cryptic in nature, whereas in the instant matter, as stated above, it has been mentioned in the summoning order that first information report and the documents submitted along with report under Section - 173(2) Cr.P.C. were perused. In view of these facts and circumstances, the case of Sangam Kesarwani (supra) also does not help the applicants. Thus, it could not be said that the impugned cognizance / summoning order suffers from any material illegality or perversity. 9. In view of material on record, it could also not be said that no prima facie case is made out against applicants and thus, no case for quashing of impugned proceedings or any interference in impugned summoning order is made out. The application under Section 528 BNSS lacks merits and thus, liable to be dismissed. 10. Accordingly, the application u/s 528 BNSS is dismissed. Order Date :- 17.7.2025 S Rawat Digitally signed by :- SHOBHIT RAWAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad