Allahabad High Court

2019 (State Vs. Murari Lal and others), arising out of Case Crime No.53 of 2018, under Sections 324, 325, 308 IPC, P.S.- G.R.P., Najibabad, District- Bijnor, pending in the court of C.J.M., Bijnor.

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and no prima-facie case is made out against him. The applicant is working as Train Ticket Examiner and at the time of incident, he was on duty in train Begampura Express. Applicant is not named in the first information report. It was submitted that there is no evidence that applicant was involved in the incident of assaulting the brother of informant or throwing him from the train. It has been pointed out that as per Chief Ticket Inspector namely Sushil Babu, in Coach No.8 of the said train, some dispute has taken place with T.T.E. Murari Lal regarding seat. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that there is no credible evidence against the applicant and impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed.

4. Learned AGA has opposed the application and submitted that the injured is working in Indian Army and he was going to Jammu in said 2 NA528 No. 29890 of 2025 train for his duty. The T.T.E. has collected an amount of Rs.500/- from him for providing a seat but neither seat was provided nor his amount was returned back and on that issue a dispute has taken place. Thereafter, applicant and one another T.T.E. have assaulted the injured and thrown him from the train. It was submitted that injured has sustained serious injuries. It was also stated that during investigation, involvement of applicant was established and it was applicant, who was called by another T.T.E. and thereafter they have assaulted the informant.

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 the charge ingredients of sheet/complaint. It is equally well settled that at this stage questions of the offence, court should not quash fact cannot be examined and a mini trial cannot be held.

7. In the instant matter the informant has made allegation that his brother Sarvajeet Singh was posted at Jammu in Indian Army and that on

07.09.2018 he was going to place of his posting by Begampura Express. On account of availability of seat, some dispute has taken place between 3 NA528 No. 29890 of 2025 Sarvajeet Singh and T.T.E. and after that T.T.E. has assaulted his brother and thrown him from the train and he has sustained serious injury. In his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., injured Sarvajeet Singh has stated that he was traveling in general coach and T.T.E. has taken an amount of Rs.500/- from him for providing a berth but neither any berth was provided nor his amount was returned back. The injured has taken a photo from mobile, while the amount was given to the said T.T.E. On that issue a quarrel has taken place and thereafter said T.T.E. called another T.T.E. and injured was assaulted by them and they thrown from the train. During investigation it was revealed that initially dispute has taken between injured and Murarilal (T.T.E.). Said Murari Lal has called the applicant (T.T.E.), who was on duty in another coach of said train, and thereafter both of them have assaulted the injured and thrown him out of train. The version of injured is supported by medical examination report. Serious injuries have been shown to the injured. In view of allegations made in the first information report and material collected during investigation, it can not be said that no prima-facie case is made out against applicant. The submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicant 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. September 12, 2025 'SP'/- (Raj Beer Singh,J.)

2019 (State Vs. Murari Lal and others), arising out of Case Crime No.53 of 2018, under Sections 324, 325, 308 IPC, P.S.- G.R.P., Najibabad, District- Bijnor, pending in the court of C.J.M., Bijnor.

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and no prima-facie case is made out against him. The applicant is working as Train Ticket Examiner and at the time of incident, he was on duty in train Begampura Express. Applicant is not named in the first information report. It was submitted that there is no evidence that applicant was involved in the incident of assaulting the brother of informant or throwing him from the train. It has been pointed out that as per Chief Ticket Inspector namely Sushil Babu, in Coach No.8 of the said train, some dispute has taken place with T.T.E. Murari Lal regarding seat. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that there is no credible evidence against the applicant and impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed.

4. Learned AGA has opposed the application and submitted that the injured is working in Indian Army and he was going to Jammu in said 2 NA528 No. 29890 of 2025 train for his duty. The T.T.E. has collected an amount of Rs.500/- from him for providing a seat but neither seat was provided nor his amount was returned back and on that issue a dispute has taken place. Thereafter, applicant and one another T.T.E. have assaulted the injured and thrown him from the train. It was submitted that injured has sustained serious injuries. It was also stated that during investigation, involvement of applicant was established and it was applicant, who was called by another T.T.E. and thereafter they have assaulted the informant.

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 the charge ingredients of sheet/complaint. It is equally well settled that at this stage questions of the offence, court should not quash fact cannot be examined and a mini trial cannot be held.

7. In the instant matter the informant has made allegation that his brother Sarvajeet Singh was posted at Jammu in Indian Army and that on

07.09.2018 he was going to place of his posting by Begampura Express. On account of availability of seat, some dispute has taken place between 3 NA528 No. 29890 of 2025 Sarvajeet Singh and T.T.E. and after that T.T.E. has assaulted his brother and thrown him from the train and he has sustained serious injury. In his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., injured Sarvajeet Singh has stated that he was traveling in general coach and T.T.E. has taken an amount of Rs.500/- from him for providing a berth but neither any berth was provided nor his amount was returned back. The injured has taken a photo from mobile, while the amount was given to the said T.T.E. On that issue a quarrel has taken place and thereafter said T.T.E. called another T.T.E. and injured was assaulted by them and they thrown from the train. During investigation it was revealed that initially dispute has taken between injured and Murarilal (T.T.E.). Said Murari Lal has called the applicant (T.T.E.), who was on duty in another coach of said train, and thereafter both of them have assaulted the injured and thrown him out of train. The version of injured is supported by medical examination report. Serious injuries have been shown to the injured. In view of allegations made in the first information report and material collected during investigation, it can not be said that no prima-facie case is made out against applicant. The submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicant 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. September 12, 2025 'SP'/- (Raj Beer Singh,J.)