Alagu Yadav and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:77866

Court No. - 71

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 4889 of 2025

Applicant :- Alagu Yadav And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ashish Kumar Dubey,Rajesh Chandra Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicants, in Court today, is taken onr record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

This application under Section - 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as BNSS) has been filed for quashing of the entire proceedings, including summoning order dated 01.11.2022, of Complaint Case No. 160 of 2019, under Sections - 323, 379, 427 I.P.C., Police Station - Chaubeypur, District - Varanasi, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Room No.3, Varanasi.

¶9

It is submitted by learned counsel for applicants that regarding an incident dated 16.08.2019 the daughter-in-law of applicant no.1 has lodged a first information report on 23.09.2019 against sons of the opposite party no.2 and others for offence under Sections - 147, 323, 504, 506, 427, 452, 354(Ka), 354 (Kha). After that the impugned complaint has been lodged on 03.10.2019 as a counter blast. The injuries shown to the complainant are false and fictitious and the same have been manufactured. There are contradictions in the version of complaint and statement of complainant. Learned counsel has referred statement of complainant and of witnesses and submitted that impugned proceedings are malicious and counter blast and thus, liable to be quashed.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and submitted that in view of the allegations made in the complaint and in the statement of complainant, recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C., as well as in the statements of witnesses, recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C., a prima facie case is made out against the applicants.

¶11

I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

¶12

The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is wellsettled 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 judgment 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.

¶13

In the instant matter, it appears from record that regarding an incident dated 16.08.2019 the daughter-in-law of applicant no.1 has lodged a first information report on 23.09.2019 against sons of the opposite party no.2 and others for offence under Section - 147, 323, 504, 506, 427, 452, 354(Ka), 354 (Kha). Regarding same incident, the opposite party no.2 has lodged the impugned complaint against applicants on 03.10.2019. As per complainant, she has sustained injuries in the incident. In her medical examination, report five injuries have been on her person thus, prima facie it appears that in the alleged incident both the parties have sustained injuries and opposite party no.2 has put up her counter version by way of complaint case. The submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicants call for determination on questions of fact which may be adequately adjudicated upon only by the trial court and even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into only by the trial court. Adjudication of questions of

¶14

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.

¶15

After considering arguments raised by learned counsel for parties and perusing the impugned complaint and the materials in support of the same, no case for quashing of impugned proceedings is made out, hence the prayer as made above is hereby refused.

¶16

However, it is directed that in case applicants move 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 applicants, provided the applicants cooperate in early disposal of discharge application.

¶17

The application under Section - 528 BNSS is disposed of in above terms.

¶18

Order Date :- 13.5.2025 S Rawat

¶19

Digitally signed by :- SHOBHIT RAWAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Alagu Yadav and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alagu Yadav and 3 Others 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