Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:75789 Court No. - 71 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 2125 of 2025 Applicant :- Anil Chaurasiya Alias Anil Kumar Chaurasiya And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Neeraj Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the records. 3. This application under Section 528 BNSS has been preferred for quashing of summoning order dated 21.11.2024, passed by learned additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 19, Deoria in complaint case no. 6747 of 2024 (Hariom v. Anil Chaurasiya and others) under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC Police Station Kotwali District Deoria and with further prayer to quash the entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case. 4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for applicant that the impugned complaint has been lodged by the opposite party No.2 making false and baseless allegations. In fact on 14.09.2023 the applicant No. 1 has lodged the first information report against the opposite party no. 2 for offence under Section 364, 512, 504, 506 IPC and after that the impugned complaint has been lodged as a counterblast. Learned counsel has referred to the injury report of the injured/ opposite party No. 2 and submitted that the time of alleged medical examination is doubtful and as per the information obtained under the Right to Information Act, at the relevant time one Dr. C.P.Tiwari was on emergency duty, whereas the alleged injury report produced by the opposite party No. 2 was prepared by one Dr. Rohit Singh. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that impugned proceedings are malicious and counterblast and thus, liable to be quashed. 5. Learned A.G.A has opposed the application and submitted that the opposite party No. 2 has lended and amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Two lakhs) to the applicant No. 1 and thereafter a dispute has taken place on account of returning the same. In that regard the opposite party No. 2 has lodged a first information report vide Crime No. 132 of 2022 under Sections 406, 504, 506 IPC, in which chargesheet was submitted and after that the applicant has lodged the aforesaid first information report against the opposite party No. 2. It was also submitted that the impugned proceedings cannot be termed as counterblast. In injury report of complainant several injuries have been shown and the version of complainant is also supported by witnesses examination under Section 202 Cr.P.C. 6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 7. 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 judgment 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. 8. In the instant matter the opposite party No. 2 has made allegation that he has lended an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Two Lakhs) to the applicant and later the applicant has issued cheques to return the said amount but the cheques were dishonoured. On account of the dispute over money, the opposite party No. 2 has lodged the case against the applicant No. 1 vide Crime No. 132 of 2022. After that applicant No. 1 has lodged a first information report against complainant and others. It was alleged that due to enmity, on 02.04.2024 the applicant has assaulted the complainant and resultantly he sustained injuries. The version of complainant is supported by medical examination report. The version of complainant is further supported by the statement of witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicants call for determination on questions of fact which may be adequately adjudicated upon only by the trial court and even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into only 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 - 482 Cr.P.C. Considering entire facts, no case for quashing of the impugned proceedings is made out. Hence the prayer as sought by the applicants is hereby refused. 9. However, it is directed that in case applicants move an application for discharge within a period of three weeks from today, the same shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law. For a period of three weeks from today and in case such an application is moved within the aforesaid period, till the disposal of such application, no coercive action shall be taken against applicants, provided applicants co-operate in early disposal of the discharge application. 10. The application u/s - 528 BNSS. is disposed of in above terms. Order Date :- 9.5.2025 Nadeem Digitally signed by :- NADEEM AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad