Ashwani Kumar Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:108429

Court No. - 71

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 19390 of 2025 Applicant :- Ashwani Kumar Yadav And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ganesh Mani,Abhishek Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

The present application under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred as 'BNSS') has been filed for quashing of the entire proceedings, including charge-sheet dated 13.09.2024 and cognizance / summoning order dated 07.10.2024, of criminal case no. 6883 of 2024, arising out of case crime no. 82 of 2024, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 452, 304 IPC, P.S. Barsathi, District Jaunpur, pending in the court of C.J.M., Court No. 11, Jaunpur.

¶7

It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicants that the first information report of this case has been lodged making false and baseless allegations and applicants have been falsely implicated due to previous enmity. In postmortem report cause of death of deceased has been shown due to shock and cardiopulmonary arrest as a result of ante-mortem myocardial infarction (MI) and thus, no case under Section 304 IPC is made out. There are various contradictions and infirmities in the prosecution version. Referring to the facts of the matter, it was submitted that no prima facie case is made out against the applicants and thus, the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and argued that in view of the allegations made in the first information report and the material collected during investigation, a prima facie case is made out against the applicants.

¶9

I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

¶10

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.

¶11

In the instant matter perusal of record shows that the informant

¶12

has lodged the first information report, alleging that on the night of 07.04.2024 applicants have trespassed into his house and they have assaulted his father with an iron rod at his head and resultantly he has sustained injuries. That version of informant is supported by injury report of the deceased. It is correct that in postmortem report cause of death of deceased has been shown due to shock and cardiopulmonary arrest as a result of ante-mortem myocardial infarction (MI) but considering facts of the matter, particularly, the fact that deceased has sustained injuries and there are allegations that he was assaulted by the applicants, no case for quashing of impugned proceedings is made out. The submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicants 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. In view of aforesaid, the prayer as made above is hereby refused. However, applicants would be at liberty to raise their pleas at the time of charge before the concerned trial court.

¶13

With the aforesaid observations the instant application under Section 528 BNSS is hereby dismissed .

¶14

Order Date :- 9.7.2025 Anand

¶15

Digitally signed by :- ANAND VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ashwani Kumar Yadav and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashwani Kumar Yadav and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases