HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 29900 of 2025 Court No. - 71 HON'BLE RAJ BEER SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 / informant and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The present application under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as 'BNSS') has been filed for quashing of the entire proceedings, including charge-sheet dated 12.11.2024 and cognizance / summoning order dated 30.01.2025, of criminal case no. 179 of 2025, arising out of case crime no. 489 of 2024, under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(2), 326(f) BNS, P.S. Chhata, District Mathura, pending in the court of C.J.(JD)/J.M., Chhata, Mathura. 3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are innocent and no prima facie case is made out against them. There is property related dispute between the parties and regarding that dispute a civil suit is pending. The allegation that applicants have put the paddy crop of informant on fire are wholly false and there is no reliable eye witness of the alleged incident. It was submitted that the land of applicants is also adjacent to the disputed land of informant and thus, it cannot be believed that applicants would have burnt the crop of informant. The alleged eye witnesses are family members of the informant. Referring to the facts of the matter, it was submitted that there is no evidence against the applicants and that the first information report of this case has been lodged with mala fide intention and thus, the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed. 4. Learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 / informant and learned Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Kartikey Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Narendra Kumar Dharm Veer And Another .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) A.G.A. have opposed the application and argued that there is evidence that applicants have put the paddy crop of informant on fire and resultantly his crop was burnt and he has suffered loss of Rs. 50,000/-. 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 perusal of record shows that though there is property related dispute between the parties but in the first information report informant has made clear allegations that on 18.10.2024 applicants along with one unknown person have put the paddy crop of informant on fire and resultantly the same was damaged. Eye witnesses Gajendra Sharma and Ratanlal have supported that fact and stated that they have seen that applicants have put the paddy crop of informant on fire. It appears that photographs of burnt crop were also taken during investigation. In view of these facts and circumstances, the impugned proceedings cannot be quashed merely on the ground that there is NA528 No. 29900 of 2025 2 property related dispute between the parties and some cases were pending. 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. In the instant matter, in view of the allegations made in the first information report and the material collected during investigation, it cannot be said that no prima facie case is made out against the applicants. Hence, no case for quashing of impugned proceedings is made out and the present application under Section 528 BNSS lacks merit and thus, liable to be dismissed. 8. The application under Section 528 BNSS is accordingly dismissed. September 12, 2025 Anand NA528 No. 29900 of 2025 3 (Raj Beer Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANAND VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad