Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:30293 Court No. - 74 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2089 of 2025 Applicant :- Smt. Rachana Verma And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Akhilesh Chandra Dwivedi,Ratnakar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Praveen Kumar Mishra Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri Sachidanand Tiwari (AOR A/S 0017/2012) holding brief of Sri Ratnaka Singh, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Muniraj Mehrotra, learned AGA for the State and Sri Praveen Kumar Mishra for opposite party No. 2. 2. This is an application U/S 482 filed for quashing the entire proceedings and impugned order dated 07.08.2024 taking cognizance on charge sheet No. 258 of 2024 dated 07.06.2024 summoning the applicants No. 1, 2 and 3 U/s 452, 323, 325, 506 IPC and Applicant No. 4 U/s 506 IPC in Case No. 74530 of 2024, pending before the learned CJM, Kanpur Nagar, arising out of Case Crime No. 218 of 2024, P.S. Chakeri, East (Commissionerate Kanpur Nagar). 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that a first information report stood lodged on 07.04.2024, FIR No. 0218 against the applicants and one Sarvesh Verma under Section 147, 452, 323, 325, 506 IPC relatable to the commission of offence on 13.03.2024 at 8:30 in the night the applicants along withe other co- accused is barged in the house and administered beating pursuant whereto fracture was also sustained. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that as per the statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. of the first informant/injured she has deposed that Sarvesh Kumar had not committed any offence but falsely implicated the applicant. He further submits that the FIR has been lodged after delay of 25 days and further some of the applicants are aged and they are also not residing. He submits that it is a case of false implication. 4. Learned AGA as well as counsel appearing for opposite party No. 2 submits that in the present proceedings as to whether offences are made out from the narration of the allegations in the first information report as well as the depositions. He submits that in the present case the same corroborates and further there happens to be an injury report relating to fracture in one of the finger. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that no interference is warranted in the present case particularly when it is the case of injury and so far as the arguments was sought to be raised that only general allegations have been made and no specific allegations and the applicants are neighbours and some of them are old age is a matter of defence which can only be raised when the trial commences. In absence of showing any jurisdictional infirmity, this Court is not required to go into the factual issues. 6. Thus, interference is declined and the application is consigned to record. 7. Learned counsel for the applicants seeks direction for consideration of his bail application in light of the judgment in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another; decided on 07.10.2021 in S.L.P. No.5191 of 2021 8. In the opinion of the Court, once a bail application is preferred then the same shall be considered with most expeditions strictly as per the law of the land without any delay. Order Date :- 4.3.2025 Rajesh Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad