HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 8502 of 2026 Court No. - 75 HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J. 1. List revised. 2. Heard Sri Prateek Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri V.D. Ojha, learned counsel for the State and perused the records. 3. The present application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed by the applicant- Prabhat Pandey, with the prayer to allow the present application and quash the entire proceeding as well as charge-sheet dated 05.03.2025 & cognizance order dated 19.06.2025 in Session Case No. 807 of 2025 (State Vs. Prabhat Pandey and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 275 of 2024, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 117(2), 110, 352, 351(2) B.N.S., 3(1) da, 3(1) dha, 3(2)V SC/ST Act, Police Station Sikandarpur, District Ballia, pending in the court of Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ballia with a further prayer that proceedings of the aforesaid case be stayed during the pendency of the present application. 4. The facts in the present case are that a first information report was lodged on 21.09.2024 by the opposite party no.2 against the applicant and 11 other persons. The matter was investigated and a charge-sheet dated 05.03.2025 was submitted against the applicant and other accused, two of them namely Ankit Pandey and Prince Pandey were exonerated. Vide order dated 19.06.2025 passed by the Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Ballia the applicant Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Prateek Srivastava, Singh Sanjeev Kumar Mahendra Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Prabhat Pandey .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) and the other accused were summoned under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 117(2), 110, 352, 351(2) B.N.S., 3(1) da, 3(1) dha, 3(2)V SC/ST Act to face trial. The present application under Section 528 BNSS has thus been filed with the prayer as aforesaid. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the implication of the applicant in the present case is without any credible evidence. It is further submitted that there is nothing on record to show that the persons who assaulted the injured were having knowledge of the accused and the injured and thus no offence under the SC/ST Act is made out. It is submitted that the investigation was unfair. It is submitted that thus the present petition be allowed. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for quashing and submitted that the applicant is named in the first information report and also in the statements of the witnesses and the injured. It is submitted that in the present case Dheeraj Kumar received injury and a fracture was seen involving digital part of right ulna bone which cannot be self-inflicted and fabricated injury. It is submitted that the allegations against the applicant prima facie make out an offence. The charge-sheet has been submitted after which the court concerned after perusing the records summoned the applicant and other co-accused. It is submitted that no ground for interference is made out. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant is named in the first information report and there are allegations against him. Dheeraj Kumar is an injured who has received a fracture. The injured, eye-witnesses have named the applicant as an accused. The order is based on material on record without any irregularity or illegality. The law with regard to quashing is trite.The scope and ambiguity of powers to be exercised under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been elaborately dealt with and considered by the Apex Court in the case of Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra : (2021) 19 SCC 401 and it has been observed and held as under: "13. From the aforesaid decisions of this Court, right from the decision of the Privy Council in Khwaja Nazir Ahmad [King Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad, 1944 SCC OnLine PC 29 : (1943-44) 71 IA 203 : AIR 1945 PC 18], the following principles of law emerge: NA528 No. 8502 of 2026 2 13.1. Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into cognizable offences. 13.2. Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences. 13.3. However, in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report the Court will not permit an investigation to go on. 13.4. The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, in the ?rarest of rare cases?. (The rarest of rare cases standard in its application for quashing under Section 482 CrPC is not to be confused with the norm which has been formulated in the context of the death penalty, as explained previously by this Court.) 13.5. While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint. 13.6. Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage. 13.7. Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception and a rarity than an ordinary rule. 13.8. Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities. The inherent power of the court is, however, recognised to secure the ends of justice or prevent the above of the process by Section 482 CrPC. 13.9. The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping. 13.10. Save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences. 13.11. Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice. 13.12. The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. During or after investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with NA528 No. 8502 of 2026 3 the known procedure. 13.13. The power under Section 482 CrPC is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the Court to be cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the Court. 13.14. However, at the same time, the Court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid down by this Court in R.P. Kapur [R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, 1960 SCC OnLine SC 21 : AIR 1960 SC 866] and Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426], has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint. 13.15. When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused, the Court when it exercises the power under Section 482CrPC, only has to consider whether or not the allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider on merits whether the allegations make out a cognizable offence or not and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR." 8. The Apex Court in the case of Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and Another : 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1947 has laid a four- step test for High Courts to follow while considering petitions for quashing criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It has been held as under: "20. The following steps should ordinarily determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing, raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.:- (i) Step one, whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable, i.e., the materials is of sterling and impeccable quality? (ii) Step two, whether the material relied upon by the accused, would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused, i.e., the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint, i.e., the material is such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false. (iii) Step three, whether the material relied upon by the accused, has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such, that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant? (iv) Step four, whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice? If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, judicial conscience of the High Court NA528 No. 8502 of 2026 4 should persuade it to quash such criminal - proceedings, in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as, proceedings arising therefrom) specially when, it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused. [(See:Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor (Criminal Appeal No. 174 of 2013)]" 9. Law for quashing is strict and trite. The present case does not fall within the category of cases as enumerated in the judgements of Apex Court in the case of Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. (Supra) and also on the four- steps test in the case of Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani (Supra). No ground for interference is made out. It is trite law that at the stage of quashing only the material of the prosecution has to be seen and the court cannot delve into the defence of the accused and then proceed to examine the matter on its merit by weighing the evidence so produced. The disputed questions of facts of the case cannot be adjudged and adjudicated at this stage while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and only the prima facie prosecution case has to be looked into as it is. Evidence needs to be led to substantiate the defence of the accused. Further it is also well settled that that while exercising powers under section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court is not required to conduct a mini trial. 10. In view of the same, looking to the facts and circumstances, the present application U/s 528 BNSS is dismissed. 11. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. March 26, 2026 AS Rathore NA528 No. 8502 of 2026 5 (Samit Gopal,J.) Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad