Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:140601 Court No. - 71 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 24251 of 2025 Applicant :- Somnath Tiwari Alias Somnath Tripathi And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kanhaiya Lal Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- Bal Mukund Singh,G.A. 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 26.12.2024 and cognizance / summoning order dated 19.03.2025, of criminal case no. 103 of 2025, (State vs. Somnath Tiwari & Ors.), arising out of case crime no. 263 of 2024, under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3), 117(2) BNS, P.S. Harraiya, District Basti, pending in the court of A.C.J.M.-I, Court No. 09, Basti. 3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are innocent and no prima facie case is made out against them. It was submitted that on 06.11.2024 applicant No. 2 has lodged a first information report against husband of opposite party No. 2 / informant and others for the offence under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(2), 134, 109(1) BNS and after that the informant has lodged the first information of this case on 22.11.2024 as a counterblast. There is no explanation for delay in lodging of the first information report. Even the medical examination of the injured was shown for 22.11.2024. The alleged injuries shown to the injured are wholly doubtful. Referring to the facts of the matter, it was submitted that the impugned proceedings are counterblast and malicious and thus, liable to be quashed. 4. Learned AGA and learned counsel for the informant / opposite party No. 2 have opposed the application and argued 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. It was further submitted that in the affidavit filed in support of present application, the applicants have mentioned that they have no criminal history, whereas applicant No. 2 has criminal history of three cases and applicant No. 3 has criminal history of one case and thus, this application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed by making false averments. 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 regarding an incident dated 06.11.2024 applicant No. 2 has lodged a first information report on 06.11.2024 and regarding same incident the opposite party No. 2 / informant has lodged the first information of this case on 22.11.2024 as a counter case. It appears that both the parties have sustained injuries. It is correct that there is delay in lodging of the first information report as well as in medical examination of injured but the impugned proceedings cannot be quashed merely on these grounds. It was also pointed out that applicant Nos. 2 and 3 have criminal history, whereas a false averment was made on their behalf that they have no criminal history. 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, 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. For a period of three weeks from today or till the applicants appear / surrender before the court concerned, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants. 9. The application under Section 528 BNSS is disposed of in above terms. Order Date :- 18.8.2025 Anand Digitally signed by :- ANAND VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad