High Court

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash the impugned Summoning order dated 05.06.2025, passed by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 1st Saharanpur, arising out of Case Crime no. 440 of 2024, U/s 333, 109, 131 of BNS, 2023 P.S- Kotwali Dehat along with entire proceedings of Case No. 3967 of 2025, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 1st Saharanpur, Police Station- Kotwali Dehat, District- Saharanpur. It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay further proceedings of Summoning order dated 05.06.2025, passed by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 1st Saharanpur, arising out of Case Crime no. 440 of 2024 U/s 333, 109, 131 of BNS, 2023, P.S- Kotwali Dehat along with entire proceedings of case no.3967 of 2025 in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 1st Saharanpur, Police Station- Kotwali Dehat, District- Saharanpur during the pendency of this instant application before this Hon'ble court and passed such other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the fact and circumstance of the case, so justice be done in the case."

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are innocent and no prima-facie case is made out against them. In fact earlier the applicant no.3 has lodged a first information report on 21.08.2022, regarding assault on his uncle Phool Singh and later on his uncle has passed away and case was converted into Section 302 IPC. In that matter applicants were opposing the bail application of the family members of opposite party no.2 and applicants have been falsely implicated due to that reason. During investigation, the Investigating Officer has not recorded statement of injured. Alleged recovery of spade shown from applicant no.2, is wholly false. As per prosecution version, other weapons were also used in the incident but the same were not recovered. Learned counsel has referred statement of independent witnesses and pointed that in the alleged incident both the parties have sustained injuries. Regarding same incident a case was also lodged by the wife of applicant no.1. Referring to facts of the matter it was submitted that no prima-facie case is made out against the applicants and impugned proceedings are malicious and thus liable to be quashed.

4. Learned AGA has opposed the application and submitted that in view of allegations made in first information report and materials on record, 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 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. In this connection, a reference may also be made to the case of R. Kalyani vs. Janak C. Mehta and Others, 2009 (1) SCC 516, Rupan Deol Bajaj vs. K.P.S. Gill (1995) SCC (Cri) 1059, Rajesh Bajaj vs. State of NCT of Delhi, (1999) 3 SCC 259 and Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd vs. Biological E Ltd. & Ors, 2000 SCC (Cri) 615. It has been held that if a prima facie case is made out disclosing ingredients of the offence, court should not quash the charge sheet/complaint. It is equally well settled that at this stage questions of fact cannot be examined and a mini trial cannot be held.

7. In the instant matter it appears from record that the opposite party no.2 has lodged first information report on 19.10.2024, alleging that on 19.04.2024 at 06:30 AM on issue of drainage, applicants have assaulted them with sword, spade and palkati (sharp edged weapon). In the alleged incident, the informant as well as his nephew Adarsh have sustained injuries. In injury report of injured Adarsh, four injuries have been shown, which include one bone deep incised wound. Recovery of spade, used in the incident, has also been shown from applicant no.2. The injured Adarsh has supported said version in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. In the first information report, which was lodged by applicant no.3 regarding assault on his uncle, the opposite party no.2 was not named and that incident has taken place about two years prior to the incident of this case. In the alleged incident both the parties have sustained injuries. In view of material on record, it can not be said that no prima-facie case is made out against applicants. 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 impugned first information report and materials on record, no case for quashing of impugned proceedings is made out. The application under Section 528 BNSS lacks merits and thus, liable to be dismissed.

9. Accordingly, the application u/s 528 BNSS is dismissed. Order Date :- 18.8.2025 'SP'/-

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash the impugned Summoning order dated 05.06.2025, passed by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 1st Saharanpur, arising out of Case Crime no. 440 of 2024, U/s 333, 109, 131 of BNS, 2023 P.S- Kotwali Dehat along with entire proceedings of Case No. 3967 of 2025, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 1st Saharanpur, Police Station- Kotwali Dehat, District- Saharanpur. It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay further proceedings of Summoning order dated 05.06.2025, passed by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 1st Saharanpur, arising out of Case Crime no. 440 of 2024 U/s 333, 109, 131 of BNS, 2023, P.S- Kotwali Dehat along with entire proceedings of case no.3967 of 2025 in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 1st Saharanpur, Police Station- Kotwali Dehat, District- Saharanpur during the pendency of this instant application before this Hon'ble court and passed such other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the fact and circumstance of the case, so justice be done in the case."

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are innocent and no prima-facie case is made out against them. In fact earlier the applicant no.3 has lodged a first information report on 21.08.2022, regarding assault on his uncle Phool Singh and later on his uncle has passed away and case was converted into Section 302 IPC. In that matter applicants were opposing the bail application of the family members of opposite party no.2 and applicants have been falsely implicated due to that reason. During investigation, the Investigating Officer has not recorded statement of injured. Alleged recovery of spade shown from applicant no.2, is wholly false. As per prosecution version, other weapons were also used in the incident but the same were not recovered. Learned counsel has referred statement of independent witnesses and pointed that in the alleged incident both the parties have sustained injuries. Regarding same incident a case was also lodged by the wife of applicant no.1. Referring to facts of the matter it was submitted that no prima-facie case is made out against the applicants and impugned proceedings are malicious and thus liable to be quashed.

4. Learned AGA has opposed the application and submitted that in view of allegations made in first information report and materials on record, 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 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. In this connection, a reference may also be made to the case of R. Kalyani vs. Janak C. Mehta and Others, 2009 (1) SCC 516, Rupan Deol Bajaj vs. K.P.S. Gill (1995) SCC (Cri) 1059, Rajesh Bajaj vs. State of NCT of Delhi, (1999) 3 SCC 259 and Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd vs. Biological E Ltd. & Ors, 2000 SCC (Cri) 615. It has been held that if a prima facie case is made out disclosing ingredients of the offence, court should not quash the charge sheet/complaint. It is equally well settled that at this stage questions of fact cannot be examined and a mini trial cannot be held.

7. In the instant matter it appears from record that the opposite party no.2 has lodged first information report on 19.10.2024, alleging that on 19.04.2024 at 06:30 AM on issue of drainage, applicants have assaulted them with sword, spade and palkati (sharp edged weapon). In the alleged incident, the informant as well as his nephew Adarsh have sustained injuries. In injury report of injured Adarsh, four injuries have been shown, which include one bone deep incised wound. Recovery of spade, used in the incident, has also been shown from applicant no.2. The injured Adarsh has supported said version in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. In the first information report, which was lodged by applicant no.3 regarding assault on his uncle, the opposite party no.2 was not named and that incident has taken place about two years prior to the incident of this case. In the alleged incident both the parties have sustained injuries. In view of material on record, it can not be said that no prima-facie case is made out against applicants. 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 impugned first information report and materials on record, no case for quashing of impugned proceedings is made out. The application under Section 528 BNSS lacks merits and thus, liable to be dismissed.

9. Accordingly, the application u/s 528 BNSS is dismissed. Order Date :- 18.8.2025 'SP'/-