HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 29146 of 2025 Court No. - 71 HON'BLE RAJ BEER SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State. 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 23.08.2024 as well as cognizance / summoning order dated 19.05.2025, of Case No. 764 of 2025 (State Vs. Jagvir and Another), arising out of Case Crime No.328 of 2024, under Sections 115(2), 333 BNS, P.S.- Gaunda, District- Aligarh, pending in the court of Civil Judge (J.D.) / Judicial Magistrate, Iglas, Aligarh. 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, regarding an incident dated 18.07.2024 the applicant no.2 Renu Devi has lodged a first information report against opposite party no.2 and her family members for offence under Sections 324(4), 305 BNS and after that the first information report of this case has been lodged by the opposite party no.2 on 21.07.2024 as a counterblast. There is long and undue delay in lodging of the first information report. Learned counsel has referred statement of informant and witnesses and submitted that informant herself has mentioned that at the time of incident, no one was present at her house. The medical examination of injured / informant has also been conducted on 22.07.2024. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that impugned proceedings are malicious and counterblast and thus 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. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Manish Kumar Pathak Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Jagvir @ Jag Vir Singh And Another .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 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 opposite party no.2 / informant has made allegations in the first information report that on 17.07.2024 the applicants have started construction in the joint property and when she opposed, they have assaulted her. She has also stated that her three sons are working in army and after incident she has gone for treatment of her husband in Army Hospital, Delhi, due to which she could not lodge first information report on the same day. The version of informant is supported by her medical examination report, wherein three injuries, including an abrasion, has been shown. The informant as well as the witnesses have supported the prosecution version in statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Merely, because earlier the applicant no.2 has lodged a first information report against applicants and there is delay in first information report and medical examination, impugned proceedings are not liable to be quashed. 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 NA528 No. 29146 of 2025 2 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 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. September 9, 2025 'SP'/- NA528 No. 29146 of 2025 3 (Raj Beer Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad