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

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the 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 06.06.2023 as well as cognizance / summoning order dated 11.10.2023, of Case No. 41191 of 2023 (State Vs. Raza Abbas and others), arising out of Case Crime No.0261 of 2022, under Sections 147, 148, 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S.- Civil Lines, District- Aligarh, pending in the court of C.J.M., Aligarh.

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. The first information report has been lodged after about one and half month of the alleged incident. In the alleged incident, no one has sustained any injury. Learned counsel has referred statement of informant recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and submitted that no specific role has been assigned to the applicant and that no prima-facie case is made out against him. It was submitted that there is dispute over property between the parties. It is further submitted that role of applicant is different from co-accused Kashif Abbas, whose application under Section 528 BNSS has been rejected. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that no prima-facie case is made out and impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed.

4. Learned AGA and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 have opposed the application and submitted that in the first information report as well as in the statement of informant and other witnesses, there are clear allegations that applicant and co-accused persons have assaulted the 2 NA528 No. 29134 of 2025 informant as well as her husband and brother-in-law. Referring to first information report and statements of witnesses, it was submitted that 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, 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 the informant has made allegation that on account of property dispute, applicant and co-accused persons have trespassed into her house and they have assaulted her as well as her husband and brother-in-law. In her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. also the informant has named the applicant and stated that all the accused persons, including the applicant, have assaulted her as well as her husband and brother-in-law. In his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the husband of informant has also made similar allegations that applicant and co-accused persons have assaulted him as well as his brother. It was also shown that the application of co-accused Kashif Abbas, seeking quashing of proceedings has already been dismissed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court. 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 3 NA528 No. 29134 of 2025 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. Hence, the prayer sought above is hereby refused.

9. However, it is directed that in case applicant moves an application for discharge before the trial court concerned within a period of three weeks from today, the same shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law by the court concerned. It is further directed that for a period of three weeks from today and in case such an application for discharge is filed within the aforesaid period, till the disposal of discharge application, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant, provided the applicant cooperates in early disposal of discharge application.

10. With the aforesaid observations, the application u/s 528 BNSS is disposed of. September 9, 2025 'SP'/- (Raj Beer Singh,J.) SANDEEP PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the 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 06.06.2023 as well as cognizance / summoning order dated 11.10.2023, of Case No. 41191 of 2023 (State Vs. Raza Abbas and others), arising out of Case Crime No.0261 of 2022, under Sections 147, 148, 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S.- Civil Lines, District- Aligarh, pending in the court of C.J.M., Aligarh.

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. The first information report has been lodged after about one and half month of the alleged incident. In the alleged incident, no one has sustained any injury. Learned counsel has referred statement of informant recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and submitted that no specific role has been assigned to the applicant and that no prima-facie case is made out against him. It was submitted that there is dispute over property between the parties. It is further submitted that role of applicant is different from co-accused Kashif Abbas, whose application under Section 528 BNSS has been rejected. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that no prima-facie case is made out and impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed.

4. Learned AGA and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 have opposed the application and submitted that in the first information report as well as in the statement of informant and other witnesses, there are clear allegations that applicant and co-accused persons have assaulted the 2 NA528 No. 29134 of 2025 informant as well as her husband and brother-in-law. Referring to first information report and statements of witnesses, it was submitted that 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, 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 the informant has made allegation that on account of property dispute, applicant and co-accused persons have trespassed into her house and they have assaulted her as well as her husband and brother-in-law. In her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. also the informant has named the applicant and stated that all the accused persons, including the applicant, have assaulted her as well as her husband and brother-in-law. In his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the husband of informant has also made similar allegations that applicant and co-accused persons have assaulted him as well as his brother. It was also shown that the application of co-accused Kashif Abbas, seeking quashing of proceedings has already been dismissed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court. 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 3 NA528 No. 29134 of 2025 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. Hence, the prayer sought above is hereby refused.

9. However, it is directed that in case applicant moves an application for discharge before the trial court concerned within a period of three weeks from today, the same shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law by the court concerned. It is further directed that for a period of three weeks from today and in case such an application for discharge is filed within the aforesaid period, till the disposal of discharge application, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant, provided the applicant cooperates in early disposal of discharge application.

10. With the aforesaid observations, the application u/s 528 BNSS is disposed of. September 9, 2025 'SP'/- (Raj Beer Singh,J.) SANDEEP PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad