Satyam Upadhyay Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:78783

Court No. - 71

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 5366 of 2025

Applicant :- Satyam Upadhyay Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Prashant Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶6

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

¶7

This application under Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as BNSS) has been filed for quashing of entire proceedings, including summoning order dated 01.03.2023, of Complaint Case No.12848 of 2022 (Markandey Yadav Vs. Manoj Tiwari and Others), under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Sadiyabad, District- Ghazipur, pending before the Court of C.J.M., Ghazipur.

¶8

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that impugned complaint has been lodged by the opposite party no.2 making false and baseless allegations. The alleged incident has been shown of 28.05.2022 at the Police Post Hansrajpur, District Ghazipur, whereas the applicant has already been transferred from there and on the date of incident he was posted at Police Station Dullahpur, District Ghaziabad and on that day he was on PRV duty and in that connection a GD entry was made at Police Station Dullahpur vide G.D. Entry 16, the copy of which has been annexed as annxure no.7 to this application. Further, the opposite party no.2 has not filed the complaint, which was originally made to the police regarding dispute with other party. The complainant has not sustained any injury. Referring to statement of complainant and of witnesses, it was submitted that no prima-facie case is made out against the applicant.

¶9

Learned AGA has opposed the application and submitted that in view of allegations made in the complaint and statements of complainant and of witnesses, a prima-facie case is made out against the applicant.

¶10

5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

¶11

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 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.

¶12

In the instant matter, the opposite party no.2 has made statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. alleging that he has made a complaint against some persons to the Police Post In-charge Manish Tiwari but his complaint was not entertained and he was abused by said Manish Tiwari. The complainant has made a complaint to the Superintendent of Police against Manish Tiwari. As the Police Post In-charge Manish Tiwari came to know about the said complaint, he has called the complainant to police post through the applicant-accused constable Satyam and constable Jitendra and he was abused and assaulted with legs and fists by the Police Post In-charge Manish Tiwari as well as by applicant-accused and constable Jitendra. The version of complainant is supported by the witnesses examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C. There is nothing to show that why the complainant would make a false complaint against applicant. So far the contention that applicant has already been transferred to another police station is concerned, it appears that the applicant was transferred and posted in the same district in the adjoining police station thus the impugned complaint can not be quashed on the ground that applicant has already been transferred from that police station. The submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicant call for determination on questions of fact, which may adequately be

¶13

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.

¶14

After considering arguments raised by learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned complaint and the materials in support of the same, no case for quashing of impugned proceedings is made out. However, the applicant would be at liberty to raise his pleas at the time of charge or to file an application for discharge. The application under Section 528 BNSS lacks merits and thus, liable to be dismissed.

¶15

With aforesaid observations, the application u/s 528 BNSS is dismissed .

¶16

Order Date :- 14.5.2025 'SP'/-

¶17

Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Satyam Upadhyay v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satyam Upadhyay v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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