HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 28263 of 2025 Court No. - 71 HON'BLE RAJ BEER SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for applicants and learned AGA for 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 22.07.2024 as well as cognizance / summoning order dated 07.04.2025, of Case No.14832 of 2025 (State Vs. Pravesh Kumar and others), arising out of Case Crime No.0132 of 2024, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S.- Gopiganj, District- Bhadohi, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadohi. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for applicants that applicants are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case. In fact on 14.06.2024, the family members of opposite party no.2 have assaulted the applicants and in that regard a non-cognizable report was lodged by the wife of applicant no.2 - Anil Kumar on 14.06.2024 at 10:30 hours. After that opposite party no.2 has lodged first information report of this case on 14.06.2024 at 17:05 hours as a counterblast. It was submitted that several persons have sustained injuries from the side of applicants and that impugned proceedings are malicious and thus liable to be quashed. 4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and submitted that in view of allegations made in the first information report and materials on record, a prima facie case is made out against the 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 Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ashok Kumar Saroj, Sudhir Bharti Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Pravesh Kumar And 2 Others .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 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, the 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 it appears from record that in the alleged incident both the sides have sustained injuries. A non-cognizable report has been lodged by the wife of applicant no.2 against Umesh Saroj, Pali Saroj, Suresh Saroj and Vinod Saroj and after that first information report of this case was lodged by opposite party no.2 on the same day. In the first information report, the informant has alleged that applicant no.1 - Parvesh Kumar has hurled abuses and assaulted the informant and after that all the applicants have assaulted the informant and her family members. That version of informant is supported by medical examination reports of injured persons. As in the incident both the sides have sustained injuries thus various questions of facts are involved and matter can only be decided by the trial court on the basis of evidence. 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 NA528 No. 28263 of 2025 2 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. The application under Section 528 BNSS lacks merits and thus liable to be dismissed. 9. Accordingly, the application u/s 528 BNSS is dismissed. September 11, 2025 CS/- NA528 No. 28263 of 2025 3 (Raj Beer Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- CHANDAN SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad