HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 18889 of 2026 Court No. - 80 HON'BLE NAND PRABHA SHUKLA, J. 1. Heard Sri Krishna Kant Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The present application under section 528 B.N.S.S. has been filed with a prayer to allow this application and to quash the entire proceeding of Case No. 431 of 2020, arising out of Case Crime No. 521 of 2019 under sections under Sections 147, 148, 323, 504, 506, 307 I.P.C. and Section 7 of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, Police Station Shahabad, District Rampur including impugned Charge-sheet No. 162A of 2020 dated 10.09.2020 as well as cognizance order dated 21.09.2020 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the first information report of this case was lodged making false and baseless allegations and that impugned charge sheet has been submitted in a routine manner without collecting any evidence. The alleged incident has been shown of 26.11.2019 at 21:00 hours but the first information report was lodged on the next day and no explanation for delay in the first information report has been shown. As per prosecution version, an incident of 'maarpeet'/assault has taken place between applicants and other party and firing was also made but in the alleged incident no one has sustained any injury. The alleged opposite party has not lodged any first information report regarding the incident. In fact, applicants are farmers and they have gone to sugar mill for loading sugar cane and some dispute has arisen among some farmers and the real offenders have run away and that Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Krishna Kant Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Raju Yadav And 6 Others .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) applicants were falsely implicated in this case. No public person has stated that applicants were involved in the incident. Police officials in their statements have named applicants by merely stating that they came to know that applicants were involved in the incident. The source of the said information is not known. The identity of applicants has not been fixed. The impugned proceedings are nothing but abuse of the process of Court. Applicants have no concern with alleged incident and they have not committed any offence. No prima facie case is made out against them. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed. 4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and submitted that in the first information report there are allegations that a quarrel has taken place at the sugar mill between two parties on the issue of turn of taking sugarcane inside the sugar mill. The police have tried to pacify them but both the parties started 'maarpeet' and made firing on each other and that applicants were involved in the said incident. It was submitted that in view of allegations made in the first information report and the statements of witnesses, a prima facie case is made out against applicants. 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 judgment reported in State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 605, the Hon'ble 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. The broad guidelines laid down by the Apex court for quashing a criminal complaint read as under: "In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code NA528 No. 18889 of 2026 2 under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelized and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are 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. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same 1 1992 Supp 1 SCC 335 6 do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. NA528 No. 18889 of 2026 3 (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge." 7. In State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Golconda Linga Swamy & Anr. (2004) 6 SCC 522 the Apex Court elaborated on what evidence and material the High Court can get into in cases where a prayer for quashing a complaint has been made. The Court held: “….Authority of the Court exists for advancement of justice, and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the Court has power to prevent such abuse. It would be an abuse of the process of the Court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of 2 (2004) 6 SCC 522 7 justice. In exercise of the powers court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation or continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of Court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the Court may examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto." 8. In R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866 : 1960 Cri LJ 1239, the Court observed that inherent jurisdiction of the High Court can be exercised to quash proceedings in a proper case either to prevent the abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It is not possible, desirable or expedient to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of this inherent jurisdiction. However, the Apex Court indicated some categories of cases where the inherent jurisdiction can and should be exercised for quashing the proceedings. There may be cases where it may be possible for the High Court to take the view that the institution or continuance of criminal proceedings against an accused person may amount to the abuse of the process of the court or that the quashing of the impugned proceedings would secure the ends of justice. If the criminal proceeding in question is in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by an accused person and it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the NA528 No. 18889 of 2026 4 institution or continuance of the said proceeding the High Court would be justified in quashing the proceeding on that ground. Absence of the requisite sanction may, for instance, furnish cases under this category. Cases may also arise where the allegations in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged. 9. Thus, the legal position is well settled that 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. For the said purpose, the Court, save and except in very exceptional circumstances, would not look to any document relied upon by the defence. 10. Coming the facts of the present case, it may noted that the version of prosecution is that two groups of farmers were quarreling with each other at the sugar mill compound over the issue of turn of taking trolley of sugarcane inside the sugar mill and police tried to pacify them but in vain. It was further alleged that both the groups did 'maarpeet' with each other and made firing. As per the first information report, the miscreants have run away from the spot and on information, police came to know that applicants were involved in the incident. It is apparent that none of the applicant has been arrested at the spot. All the witnesses are police officials and in their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. they have reiterated the version of first information report and stated that after incident both the parties have run away from spot and that on information, they came to know that the applicants were involved in the incident. There is absolutely no such material to show that on what basis the police came to know that the applicants were involved in the incident. The case diary does not show that as to what investigation was conducted to ascertain the identity of miscreants. There is no statement of any public person to support the prosecution version that applicants were involved in the incident. There is absolutely no valid material to fix the identity of the applicants. Merely, a vague allegation has been made that after incident, on information it was revealed that applicants were involved in the NA528 No. 18889 of 2026 5 incident. It is not the case of prosecution that applicants were known to the police officials since before the incident. Considering the version of first information report and statements of witnesses, the identity of the applicants regarding involvement in the incident is wholly doubtful. 11. It would be pertinent to mention that in the alleged incident no one has sustained any injury. Neither of the party, which were allegedly indulging in attack on each other, has lodged any complaint or first information report. There is no such statement of any person that he was assaulted by the applicants or that applicants have made any firing upon him. In other words there is no victim so as to attract the mischief of Sections 323, 307 I.P.C. Similarly, no person has made any such statement that he was abused or criminally intimidated by the applicants and thus the offence under Sections 504, 506 I.P.C. is also not made out. Similarly there is no material to attract the provisions of Section 7 of C.L.A. Act. Though from prosecution version it appears that there was an unlawful assembly and some rioting has taken place but as stated above there is no material to fix the identity of the applicants regarding involvement in alleged unlawful assembly thus no case under section 147, 148 IPC is made out against applicants. Even if the prosecution version is accepted as such, the conviction of applicants is not possible and thus to exhaust the remedy of trial would be a futile exercise and wastage of time of court. In view of these facts and circumstances, it would be interest of justice that the impugned proceedings be quashed. 12. In view of aforesaid, the impugned proceedings, including charge- sheet and cognizance order, against the applicants are hereby quashed. 13. Application under section 528 B.N.S.S. is hereby allowed. September 8, 2026 Puspendra NA528 No. 18889 of 2026 6 (Nand Prabha Shukla,J.) Digitally signed by :- PUSPENDRA NARAYAN SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad