HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 34258 of 2025 Court No. - 81 HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant, and the learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The present application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been filed by the applicant for quashing of the impugned order dated 27th March, 2025 as well as the entire proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 1336 of 2024 (State Vs. Kanran & Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 225 of 2024, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 332, 353, 325 and 307 I.P.C., Police Station-Tajganj, District- Agra, pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 23, Agra. By the order dated 27th March, 2025, the discharge application filed by the applicants has been rejected. By means of the supplementary affidavit, the applicants have also challenged the order of framing charge against them dated 25th July, 2025. 3. Brief facts of the case is that the First Information Report dated 20th April, 2024 has been lodged by O.P, no.2/complainant against the four named accused and some unknown persons including the applicants by alleging therein that on the night of 19.04.2024, while police personnel Constables Amit Kumar Sharma and Abhay Pratap Singh were on night patrol duty under Police Station Tajganj, Agra, they observed four individuals gathered suspiciously near an empty plot near ADA Heights. Upon inquiring about their presence, the four individuals behaved misbehoovingly and engaged in a scuffle with the officers. When restrained, the individuals acting with common intention launched a life-threatening assault on the police personnel using an iron rod and wooden sticks, causing severe injuries to Constable Abhay Pratap Singh and Constable Amit Kumar Sharma, and tore their official uniforms. The assailants raised an alarm to obstruct official duty, calling other Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Basharat Ali Khan, Munna Khan, Rajendra Prasad Shukla, Rishabh Shukla, Zawwar Haider Naqvi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Kamran And 2 Others .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) local associates from Nagla Mewati who assisted three of the main accused in fleeing the spot under cover of darkness. During the attempt to apprehend them, the accused resisted heavily, resulting in minor injuries from falls into nearby bushes. Three accused individuals were apprehended at the scene, identified as Kamran, Imran, and Aakaram, all sons of Shamsuddin, residents of Mohalla Nagla Mewati, Police Station Tajganj, Agra, while their fourth associate who fled was identified as Shamsuddin. An iron rod was recovered from Kamran and a stick from Imran, both of which, along with the torn uniforms of the injured officers, were sealed as evidence. The three accused were taken into police custody at approximately 23:25 hours under Sections 147, 148, 332, 353, 307, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and a case was accordingly registered against them. 4. After lodging of the aforesaid first information report, the investigation proceeded and upon completion of the same, the Investigating Officer has submitted the charge-sheet against the applicant on which the cognizance has been taken and the applicant has been summoned. After that the applicants have been enlarged on bail and filed application for discharge, which has been rejected vide order dated 27th March, 2025 and the order for framing charge against the applicants have also been passed. Hence the present application has been filed. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the First Information Report has been lodged on the basis of false and frivolous allegations, which is nothing but an abuse of process of law only with a view to harass the applicant. 6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has contented that from the allegations made in the First Information Report cognizable offence is made out against the applicants. The defence of the applicant cannot be taken into consideration, at this stage. Therefore, the applicant does not deserve any indulgence. 7. From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C./528 B.N.S.S. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen where the allegation made in the FIR/complaint, even of they are taken at their entirety, prima facie constitutes cognizable offence against the accused. 8. Position of law for invoking the jurisdiction of inherent power of High Court has been settled by the Apex Court in following judgments:- 1. R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866; NA528 No. 34258 of 2025 2 2. Kurukshetra University Vs. State of Haryana, (1977) 4 SCC 451; 3. State of West Bengal Vs. Swapan Kumar Guha, (1982) 1 SCC 561; 4. Dhanalakshmi Vs. R. Prasanna Kumar, 1990 Supp SCC 686; 5. State of Haryana & Others Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335; 6. State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 222; 7. B.S. Joshi Vs, State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675; 8. Sanapareddy Maheedhar Seshagiri & another Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & another, (2007) 13 SCC 165; 9. State of Telangana Vs. Habib Abdullaha Jilani & others, (2017) 2 SCC 779; 10. M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra & others, 2021 AIR SC 1918. 9. After considering the totality of facts of the case and keeping in mind the position of law, there is no merit in the present application. Apart from that there is no material to show that the complaint/FIR is malafide, frivolous and vexatious. The version of the first information report and the statements of the informant/complainant and injured recorded under Sections 161 Cr.P.C./180 B.N.S.S., the medical examination report of the injured, namely, Abhay Pratap Singh and Amit Sharma and the police documents papers support the prosecution version. As per the medical examination report, the injured Abhay Pratap Singh has sustained as many as 10 injuries and Amit Sharma has sustained as many as 12 injuries including fracture of his rib. The interference at the threshold of quashing of the criminal proceedings of the present case cannot be said to be exceptional as it discloses prima facie commission of cognizable offence. 10.In the result, the prayer for quashing of impugned orders and the entire proceeding is refused. 11. With the aforesaid observations, the application is dismissed. September 18, 2026 Sushil/- NA528 No. 34258 of 2025 3 (Madan Pal Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad