Criminal Case No. 51794 of 2023 · Allahabad High Court

3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are innocent and no prima facie case is made out against them. The dispute between the parties relates to property. The opposite party No. 2 / informant is mother of applicant Nos. 1 and 2 and she is living with younger brother of applicant Nos. 1 and 2. In the alleged incident no one has sustained any injury. The allegations that applicants have damaged the articles of the shop of younger son of informant are wholly false. There are material contradictions in the statements of witnesses. Referring to the facts of the matter, it was submitted that the impugned proceedings are malicious and thus, liable to be quashed.

4. It was further submitted that the impugned cognizance / summoning order dated 27.10.2023 has been passed on a printed proforma by merely filling in details of case like case number, section, crime number and police station 2 NA528 No. 28092 of 2025 etc. in the proforma, which clearly shows that this order has been passed in a mechanical manner without application of judicial mind and thus, the impugned cognizance / summoning order is not sustainable.

5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and argued that in view of the allegations made in the first information report and the material collected during investigation, a prima facie case is made out against the applicants but it could not be disputed that impugned summoning order has been passed on a printed proforma by filling details of the case.

6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

7. 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.

8. In the instant matter perusal of record shows that the first information report of this case has been lodged by opposite party No. 2 / informant, who is mother of applicant Nos. 1 and 2. Applicant Nos. 4 and 3 are wives of applicant Nos. 1 and 2 respectively and applicant No. 5 is son of applicant No. 1. It was alleged that on the day of incident, applicants have 3 NA528 No. 28092 of 2025 damaged the articles of the shop of younger son of the informant and they have abused and threatened them. They have forcibly taken over possession on the shop of her younger son and various articles, including camera and sign board of the shop, were damaged. She has further alleged that she along with her younger son was ousted from the house. 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. In view of the allegations made in the first information report and the material collected during investigation, no case for quashing of impugned proceedings is made out. Accordingly, the prayer as made above is hereby refused.

9. However, so far the impugned cognizance / summoning order dated

27.10.2023 is concerned, it appears that the same has been passed on a printed proforma by merely filling the details of case like case number, section, crime number and police station etc. in the proforma, which clearly shows that summoning order has been passed in a mechanical manner without application of judicial mind and thus, the impugned cognizance / summoning order is not sustainable and the same is liable to be quashed.

10. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned cognizance / summoning order dated 27.10.2023, passed by the A.C.J.M.-I, Gorakhpur, is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the court concerned to pass the order on cognizance / summoning afresh expeditiously in accordance with law.

11. The application under Section 528 BNSS is disposed of in above terms. September 10, 2025 Anand (Raj Beer Singh,J.)

3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are innocent and no prima facie case is made out against them. The dispute between the parties relates to property. The opposite party No. 2 / informant is mother of applicant Nos. 1 and 2 and she is living with younger brother of applicant Nos. 1 and 2. In the alleged incident no one has sustained any injury. The allegations that applicants have damaged the articles of the shop of younger son of informant are wholly false. There are material contradictions in the statements of witnesses. Referring to the facts of the matter, it was submitted that the impugned proceedings are malicious and thus, liable to be quashed.

4. It was further submitted that the impugned cognizance / summoning order dated 27.10.2023 has been passed on a printed proforma by merely filling in details of case like case number, section, crime number and police station 2 NA528 No. 28092 of 2025 etc. in the proforma, which clearly shows that this order has been passed in a mechanical manner without application of judicial mind and thus, the impugned cognizance / summoning order is not sustainable.

5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and argued that in view of the allegations made in the first information report and the material collected during investigation, a prima facie case is made out against the applicants but it could not be disputed that impugned summoning order has been passed on a printed proforma by filling details of the case.

6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

7. 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.

8. In the instant matter perusal of record shows that the first information report of this case has been lodged by opposite party No. 2 / informant, who is mother of applicant Nos. 1 and 2. Applicant Nos. 4 and 3 are wives of applicant Nos. 1 and 2 respectively and applicant No. 5 is son of applicant No. 1. It was alleged that on the day of incident, applicants have 3 NA528 No. 28092 of 2025 damaged the articles of the shop of younger son of the informant and they have abused and threatened them. They have forcibly taken over possession on the shop of her younger son and various articles, including camera and sign board of the shop, were damaged. She has further alleged that she along with her younger son was ousted from the house. 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. In view of the allegations made in the first information report and the material collected during investigation, no case for quashing of impugned proceedings is made out. Accordingly, the prayer as made above is hereby refused.

9. However, so far the impugned cognizance / summoning order dated

27.10.2023 is concerned, it appears that the same has been passed on a printed proforma by merely filling the details of case like case number, section, crime number and police station etc. in the proforma, which clearly shows that summoning order has been passed in a mechanical manner without application of judicial mind and thus, the impugned cognizance / summoning order is not sustainable and the same is liable to be quashed.

10. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned cognizance / summoning order dated 27.10.2023, passed by the A.C.J.M.-I, Gorakhpur, is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the court concerned to pass the order on cognizance / summoning afresh expeditiously in accordance with law.

11. The application under Section 528 BNSS is disposed of in above terms. September 10, 2025 Anand (Raj Beer Singh,J.)