Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:121568 Court No. - 79 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 26329 of 2025 Applicant :- Rahul Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Akhilesh Kumar Mishra,Rishabh Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J. 1. Heard Sri Akhilesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Neelkanth Upadhyay, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The instant application has been filed with a prayer to quash the charge-sheet dated 11-01-2025, cognizance order dated 17-01-2025 as well as entire proceeding of Special Case No.156 of 2025, under Sections 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Noorpur, district Bijnor. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case with malafide intent and on the basis of hearsay evidence. It is submitted that initially, an F.I.R. dated 01.11.2024 was lodged only against co-accused Hariom Saini and one unknown person for the alleged assault on Komal Singh, who sustained head injuries and lost teeth due to a brick and lathi blow, and was thereafter admitted to Moradabad hospital. The post-mortem of Komal Singh was conducted on 21.11.2024, and the Investigating Officer recorded statements of various witnesses, including inquest panchas and police personnel, and made efforts to collect the CDRs of the named accused. It is further submitted that after an unexplained delay, the name of the applicant surfaced on the basis of alleged hearsay statements, wherein it was claimed that he was seen fleeing towards the jungle. Upon his arrest, however, nothing incriminating was recovered from the applicant except Rs. 100/-. The co-accused and independent witnesses from the village, including Vijay Pal Singh, Teekam Singh, and Jograj Singh, have all denied the applicant’s involvement in the incident. Despite the absence of direct or circumstantial evidence against him, the Investigating Officer, in a mechanical manner, submitted a charge-sheet against the applicant on 11.01.2025, and the learned court below took cognizance on 17.01.2025 without proper judicial application of mind. It is further contended that the applicant was granted bail pursuant to the order dated 06.2025 passed by the Hon’ble Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1268 of 2025. The applicant has challenged the charge-sheet, cognizance order, and entire proceedings by means of the present application, as the same are manifestly illegal, arbitrary, and abuse of the process of law. 4.. Per contra, Sri Neelkanth Upadhyay, learned A.G.A., submitted that from the bare perusal of the F.I.R., it cannot be said that no prima facie case is made out against the applicant. He further submitted that the court below has rightly taken cognizance against the applicant, and no interference is required by this Court in the impugned order as well as in the ongoing proceedings. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. From the perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants. The arguments raised by learned counsel for the applicants are all disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court. 7. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1918, R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192, and lastly, Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 has held that only those cases in which no prima facie case is made out can be considered in an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 8. The instant application does not fall under the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgments mentioned above, and followed in a number of matters. Moreover, the facts as alleged cannot be said that, prima facie, no offence is made out against the applicants. It is only after the evidence and trial, it can be seen as to whether the offence, as alleged, has been committed or not. 9. However, it is open for the applicants to take all its defence in the trial. 10. Hence, the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be entertained and is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 24.7.2025 pks Digitally signed by :- PANKAJ KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad