State v. Rajpal), arising out of Case Crime No
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:127841 Court No. - 71 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 22368 of 2025 Applicant :- Rajpal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rohit Sharan Tomar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. This application u/s 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as 'BNSS') has been filed for quashing of the entire proceedings, including charge-sheet dated 22.10.2024 as well as cognizance / summoning order dated 18.01.2025, of Case No. 59 of 2025 (State Vs. Rajpal), arising out of Case Crime No.295 of 2024, under Section 108 BNS, P.S.- Milak, District- Rampur, pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge (S.D.)- IInd, Rampur.
Legal Reasoning
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 though the informant has made allegation that his son was murdered by the applicant and other named persons, however during investigation that version was found false and it was found that deceased has committed suicide on railway track. However, there are statements of several witnesses, who have inter-alia stated that deceased was continuously being harassed and assaulted by applicant and that on the day of incident also, he was assaulted by applicant and others and thereafter deceased has committed suicide at railway track. Whether the alleged act attributed to applicant amounts to abetment of suicide or not, can be considered at the stage of framing of charge by the trial court. Various questions of facts are involved in the matter, which can not be examined in the proceedings under Section 528 BNSS. It is well-settled that powers under Section 528 BNSS have to be invoked in rare cases. In the instant matter considering material on record, no case for quashing of impugned proceedings is made out. 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 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. 10. Accordingly, the application u/s 528 BNSS is dismissed. Order Date :- 31.7.2025 'SP'/- Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Arguments
4. 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 first information report was lodged by the informant against applicant and three more persons for offence under Sections 103(1), 238 BNS and during investigation police have found that in fact deceased has committed suicide at railway track and the case was converted from Section 103(1) BNS to Section 108 BNS. Learned counsel submitted that the informant has made allegations that applicant and other named persons have committed murder of his son but that version has been found false during investigation. There is no evidence that applicant has abetted or instigated the deceased to commit suicide. Applicant was not present at the spot. Learned counsel has referred statements of Station Master and Loco Pilot, wherein they have stated that suddenly the deceased has lied at the railway track. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that there is no evidence that applicant has abetted the deceased to commit suicide and thus no prima-facie case is made out against applicant and impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed. 5. Learned AGA has opposed the application and submitted that during investigation several witnesses have made statements to the effect that applicant continuously used to harass and assault the deceased. On 11.08.2024 at about 02:00 P.M. the applicant and other named persons have assaulted him and resultantly deceased has committed suicide by coming on railway track. It was submitted that it was due to continuous harassment and assault being made by applicant, the deceased has committed suicide, which amounts to abetment of suicide. On the day of incident also, the deceased was assaulted by the applicant. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that a prima-facie case is made out against applicant. 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