HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 30954 of 2025 Court No. - 71 HON'BLE RAJ BEER SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. This application under Section - 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as 'BNSS') has been preferred for quashing of charge-sheet dated 27.05.2025 as well as cognizance order dated 24.06.2025, passed in Case No. 240 of 2025 (State Vs. Vikas and Another), arising out of Case Crime No. 172 of 2025, under Section - 351(3) BNS, Police Station - Karari, District - Kaushambi, pending in the court of Special Judge (POCSO Act), Kaushambi. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and no prima facie case is made out against him. The allegations of rape have been levelled against co-accused Vikas, who is son of the applicant. The only allegation made against applicant is that after incident applicant has told the informant that he would marry his son Vikas with victim and asked him not to report the matter to the police but later he refused to marry his son with victim. It was submitted that applicant has a right to marry his son as per his choice and thus, no prima facie case is made out against applicant. Learned counsel has referred first information report and statements of witnesses and submitted that no prima facie case is made out against applicant. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mohammad Atif, Reena Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Kamla Kant Saroj .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and submitted that in statement of informant as well as of victim, it has clearly been mentioned that after incident the applicant has promised to marry his son with victim but later on he refused to marry his son with her and threatened the informant by saying that informant may take Rs. 2 lakhs from him to shut his mouth and he may marry his daughter somewhere else. In her statement recorded under Section - 180 and 183 BNSS, victim has stated that applicant has threatened to kill her. The informant has also supported the said fact. It was submitted that a prima facie case is made out against applicant. 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. 7. In the instant matter the informant has alleged in the first information report that son of applicant has committed rape upon his daughter and after that incident the applicant has promised to marry his son with daughter of informant but later on he refused and threatened the informant by saying that informant may take Rs. 2 lakhs from him to shut his mouth on that issue and that he may marry his daughter somewhere else. In her NA528 No. 30954 of 2025 2 statement recorded under Section - 180 and 183 BNSS, victim has stated that applicant has threatened to kill her. The informant has also supported the said fact. In view of these facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that no prima facie case is made out. 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 jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS. 8. After considering arguments raised by learned counsel for the parties and perusing the first information report and the materials in support of the same, no case for quashing of impugned proceedings is made out. Accordingly, the prayer as made above is hereby refused. 9. However, it is directed that in case applicant surrenders before the court concerned within a period of three weeks from today and applies for bail, his bail application shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with settled law. For a period of three weeks from today or till the applicant surrenders before the court below, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant in the aforesaid case. 10. The application under Section 528 BNSS is disposed of in above terms. September 19, 2025 S Rawat NA528 No. 30954 of 2025 3 (Raj Beer Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHOBHIT RAWAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad