Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:121952 Court No. - 71 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 25037 of 2025 Applicant :- Santosh Singh And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mahesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants 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 cognizance / summoning order dated 27.05.2025, of Case No. 3002 of 2025 (State Vs. Santosh Singh and others), arising out of Case Crime No.72 of 2025, under Sections 110, 115(2), 352, 109(1) BNS, P.S.- Mau, District- Chitrakoot, pending in the court of Civil Judge (C.D.) / F.T.C., Chitrakoot. 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. It was submitted that in fact an incident has taken place between brother of informant and co-accused Pankaj Singh and that applicants were not present at the spot but they have been falsely implicated due to previous enmity. There are contradictions in the supplementary medical examination reports of the injured. Learned counsel submitted that applicants have been falsely implicated in this case and thus, the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed. 4. Learned AGA has opposed the application and submitted that in view of allegations made in first information report and materials on record, 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 the informant has made allegation that on 16.03.2025 applicants and co-accused Pankaj Singh have assaulted his brother Pradeep Singh with lathi and sticks and resultantly he has sustained serious injuries. The medical examination report of injured has not been brought on record, however from C.T. Scan report, it appears that he has suffered linear fracture in bilateral temporal bone and there was subtle subdural collection in right temporal region. As per another report, fracture of the squamous part of the temporal bone was shown. The injured has made clear statement that applicants and co-accused persons have assaulted him and resultantly he has sustained injuries. 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 applicants surrender before the court concerned within a period of two 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 two 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 :- 24.7.2025 'SP'/- Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad