Vijay Pratap Singh v. Ritik Gupta), under Sections

3. Learned Senior Advocate submitted that no prima facie case is made out against the applicant. Regrading an incident dated

25.04.2019, the father of the applicant has lodged a first information report against son of opposite party no.2 for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. after that the opposite party no.2 has moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against the applicant, as a counterblast to the said case. On the application of opposite party no.2, the first information report was lodged on

06.06.2019. After investigation, police have submitted final report in favour of applicant. The opposite party no.2 has preferred a protest petition which was registered as a complaint case and thereafter, the applicant was summoned vide impugned summoning order dated 08.01.2025.

4. Learned Senior Advocate further submitted that in the incident, the applicant had sustained serious injuries, whereas the injuries shown to the son of the opposite party no.2 are simple in nature and no case under Section 325 I.P.C. is made out. Referring to the facts of the matter, it was submitted that the applicant and the son of the opposite party no.2 were friends and an altercation has taken place on account of one lady, who was common friend of both of them. The son of opposite party no.2 has assaulted the applicant. In the first information report lodged by the opposite party no.2, matter was investigated and the allegation levelled by opposite party no.2 and his son were found false and thus Police have submitted final report, whereas in the case lodged by the father of applicant, charge-sheet has been submitted and the son of the opposite party no.2 was granted bail by this Court. The complainant/opposite party no.2 is not an eye witness of the alleged incident and that impugned proceedings are counterblast to the case lodged by the father of applicant against son of opposite party no.2. Learned Senior counsel has referred the statement of complainant and of witnesses and submitted that no prima facie case is made out against the applicant and the impugned proceedings are counterblast and thus, liable to be quashed.

5. Learned A.G.A. has submitted that regarding incident dated

25.04.2019, the father of applicant has lodged a first information report on 27.04.2019 against son of opposite party no.2 and regarding same incident the opposite party no.2 has approached the Police but his report was not lodged and thus, on 06.05.2019, he has moved an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. After that the first information report was registered on 06.06.2019. In the alleged incident, the son of opposite party no.2 has sustained injuries and thus, the impugned proceedings are cross-version of the case lodged by the father of applicant and a prima facie case is made out against the applicant.

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.

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

8. In the instant matter, it appears that regarding an incident dated

25.04.2019, the father of the applicant has lodged a first informant report on 27.04.2019 under Section 307 I.P.C. against son of the opposite party no.2, and regarding same incident the opposite party no.2 has moved an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. on

06.05.2019 alleging that his report was not lodged by the Police. On the application of opposite party no.2, the first information report of this case was lodged on 06.06.2019. In injury report of the son of opposite party no. 2, seven injuries, including contusions and abrasions, have been shown. It is correct that in the first information report lodged by the opposite party no.2, Police have submitted final report but the protest petition of the opposite party no.2 was registered as a complaint case and he has supported his version in his statement recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Injured Shivam Kumar Singh (son of opposite party no.2) in his statement under Section 202 CrPC has made allegation that applicant has attacked him with a sharp-edged weapon and he has sustained serious injuries and that Police have not investigated the matter properly and final report was submitted. It is apparent that in the incident dated 25.04.2019, both sides have sustained injuries and the opposite party no.2 has put up a cross case by way of impugned proceedings. In view of material on record, 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.

9. After considering arguments raised by learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned complaint and the materials in support of the same, this Court does not find it to be a case which can be determined or gone into in an application under Section 528 BNSS. In view of material on record, no case for quashing of impugned proceedings or any other interference is made out. Hence, the present application under Section 528 BNSS is liable to be dismissed.

10. Accordingly, the application u/s 528 BNSS is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 11.4.2025/ Rama Kant RAMA KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

3. Learned Senior Advocate submitted that no prima facie case is made out against the applicant. Regrading an incident dated

25.04.2019, the father of the applicant has lodged a first information report against son of opposite party no.2 for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. after that the opposite party no.2 has moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against the applicant, as a counterblast to the said case. On the application of opposite party no.2, the first information report was lodged on

06.06.2019. After investigation, police have submitted final report in favour of applicant. The opposite party no.2 has preferred a protest petition which was registered as a complaint case and thereafter, the applicant was summoned vide impugned summoning order dated 08.01.2025.

4. Learned Senior Advocate further submitted that in the incident, the applicant had sustained serious injuries, whereas the injuries shown to the son of the opposite party no.2 are simple in nature and no case under Section 325 I.P.C. is made out. Referring to the facts of the matter, it was submitted that the applicant and the son of the opposite party no.2 were friends and an altercation has taken place on account of one lady, who was common friend of both of them. The son of opposite party no.2 has assaulted the applicant. In the first information report lodged by the opposite party no.2, matter was investigated and the allegation levelled by opposite party no.2 and his son were found false and thus Police have submitted final report, whereas in the case lodged by the father of applicant, charge-sheet has been submitted and the son of the opposite party no.2 was granted bail by this Court. The complainant/opposite party no.2 is not an eye witness of the alleged incident and that impugned proceedings are counterblast to the case lodged by the father of applicant against son of opposite party no.2. Learned Senior counsel has referred the statement of complainant and of witnesses and submitted that no prima facie case is made out against the applicant and the impugned proceedings are counterblast and thus, liable to be quashed.

5. Learned A.G.A. has submitted that regarding incident dated

25.04.2019, the father of applicant has lodged a first information report on 27.04.2019 against son of opposite party no.2 and regarding same incident the opposite party no.2 has approached the Police but his report was not lodged and thus, on 06.05.2019, he has moved an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. After that the first information report was registered on 06.06.2019. In the alleged incident, the son of opposite party no.2 has sustained injuries and thus, the impugned proceedings are cross-version of the case lodged by the father of applicant and a prima facie case is made out against the applicant.

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.

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

8. In the instant matter, it appears that regarding an incident dated

25.04.2019, the father of the applicant has lodged a first informant report on 27.04.2019 under Section 307 I.P.C. against son of the opposite party no.2, and regarding same incident the opposite party no.2 has moved an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. on

06.05.2019 alleging that his report was not lodged by the Police. On the application of opposite party no.2, the first information report of this case was lodged on 06.06.2019. In injury report of the son of opposite party no. 2, seven injuries, including contusions and abrasions, have been shown. It is correct that in the first information report lodged by the opposite party no.2, Police have submitted final report but the protest petition of the opposite party no.2 was registered as a complaint case and he has supported his version in his statement recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Injured Shivam Kumar Singh (son of opposite party no.2) in his statement under Section 202 CrPC has made allegation that applicant has attacked him with a sharp-edged weapon and he has sustained serious injuries and that Police have not investigated the matter properly and final report was submitted. It is apparent that in the incident dated 25.04.2019, both sides have sustained injuries and the opposite party no.2 has put up a cross case by way of impugned proceedings. In view of material on record, 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.

9. After considering arguments raised by learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned complaint and the materials in support of the same, this Court does not find it to be a case which can be determined or gone into in an application under Section 528 BNSS. In view of material on record, no case for quashing of impugned proceedings or any other interference is made out. Hence, the present application under Section 528 BNSS is liable to be dismissed.

10. Accordingly, the application u/s 528 BNSS is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 11.4.2025/ Rama Kant RAMA KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad