State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal, the Supreme Court has carved out certain guidelines, wherein FIR

: Akanksha Srivastava, Farha Naz, Quazi Mohammad Akaram Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Court No. - 71 HON'BLE RAJ BEER SINGH, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned AGA for State.

2. This application under Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as BNSS) has been filed for quashing of entire proceedings, including charge-sheet dated 17.08.2022 as well as cognizance/ summoning order dated 31.03.2023, of Case No.1497 of 2023 (State Vs. Arun @ Appu), arising out of Case Crime No.213 of 2022, under Sections 354, 323, 452, 506 IPC, P.S.- Pawai, District- Azamgarh, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, FTC Mahila, Azamgarh.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for applicant that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. In fact on 07.07.2022 the applicant has lodged a first information report against husband of opposite party no.2 and after that opposite party no.2 has lodged first information report of this case on 19.07.2022 as a counterblast. The alleged incident has been shown of 18.07.2022 at 11:00 A.M. and the first information report was registered on 19.07.2022 at 17:15 hours. There is long delay in lodging of the first information report. It was submitted that as per statement of informant/ injured, she was assaulted by applicant and co-accused with a cutter, whereas the injuries shown to the informant have been caused by hard and blunt object. Further, in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the informant has stated that she has suffered injuries at her hand and near her neck but the same fact is not corroborated by medical examination report. Referring to the facts of the matter, it was submitted that the impugned 2 NA528 No. 28787 of 2025 proceedings are malicious and thus liable to be quashed.

4. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for opposite party no.2 have opposed the application and submitted that in view of allegations made in the first information report and material on record, a prima facie case is made out against applicant.

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, the 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 informant has made allegations that on 18.07.2022 at 11:00 A.M. applicant and co-accused Arun alias Appu trespassed into her house and they caught and assaulted her. In her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the informant/ victim has made allegation that on 18.07.2022 while she was going to take bath, applicant and co-accused person, who were under influence of liquor, trespassed into her house and they caught and assaulted her. She has further alleged that the applicant has pressed her mouth and he was having a cutter in his hand and 3 NA528 No. 28787 of 2025 caused injury at her hand and near neck. She has further alleged that accused persons did some spray at her mouth and resultantly her mouth turned red. In medical examination report of injured/ victim, four injuries, including multiple abrasions in front of chest, have been shown. It is correct that earlier a first information report was registered by applicant against opposite party no.2 on 07.07.2022 but in view of nature of accusations and material on record, the impugned proceedings are not liable to be quashed on that ground. 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 as well as considering the nature of accusations and medical examination report, it cannot be said that no prima facie case 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 CS/- (Raj Beer Singh,J.) CHANDAN SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

: Akanksha Srivastava, Farha Naz, Quazi Mohammad Akaram Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Court No. - 71 HON'BLE RAJ BEER SINGH, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned AGA for State.

2. This application under Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as BNSS) has been filed for quashing of entire proceedings, including charge-sheet dated 17.08.2022 as well as cognizance/ summoning order dated 31.03.2023, of Case No.1497 of 2023 (State Vs. Arun @ Appu), arising out of Case Crime No.213 of 2022, under Sections 354, 323, 452, 506 IPC, P.S.- Pawai, District- Azamgarh, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, FTC Mahila, Azamgarh.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for applicant that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. In fact on 07.07.2022 the applicant has lodged a first information report against husband of opposite party no.2 and after that opposite party no.2 has lodged first information report of this case on 19.07.2022 as a counterblast. The alleged incident has been shown of 18.07.2022 at 11:00 A.M. and the first information report was registered on 19.07.2022 at 17:15 hours. There is long delay in lodging of the first information report. It was submitted that as per statement of informant/ injured, she was assaulted by applicant and co-accused with a cutter, whereas the injuries shown to the informant have been caused by hard and blunt object. Further, in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the informant has stated that she has suffered injuries at her hand and near her neck but the same fact is not corroborated by medical examination report. Referring to the facts of the matter, it was submitted that the impugned 2 NA528 No. 28787 of 2025 proceedings are malicious and thus liable to be quashed.

4. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for opposite party no.2 have opposed the application and submitted that in view of allegations made in the first information report and material on record, a prima facie case is made out against applicant.

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, the 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 informant has made allegations that on 18.07.2022 at 11:00 A.M. applicant and co-accused Arun alias Appu trespassed into her house and they caught and assaulted her. In her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the informant/ victim has made allegation that on 18.07.2022 while she was going to take bath, applicant and co-accused person, who were under influence of liquor, trespassed into her house and they caught and assaulted her. She has further alleged that the applicant has pressed her mouth and he was having a cutter in his hand and 3 NA528 No. 28787 of 2025 caused injury at her hand and near neck. She has further alleged that accused persons did some spray at her mouth and resultantly her mouth turned red. In medical examination report of injured/ victim, four injuries, including multiple abrasions in front of chest, have been shown. It is correct that earlier a first information report was registered by applicant against opposite party no.2 on 07.07.2022 but in view of nature of accusations and material on record, the impugned proceedings are not liable to be quashed on that ground. 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 as well as considering the nature of accusations and medical examination report, it cannot be said that no prima facie case 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 CS/- (Raj Beer Singh,J.) CHANDAN SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad