Mayank Vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:38384

Court No. - 71

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 8515 of 2025

Applicant :- Mayank Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Raj Pandey,Shashi Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶6

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

¶7

This application u/s 528 BNSS has been filed for quashing of the entire proceedings, including summoning order dated 02.01.2025, of Complaint Case No. 128 of 2021, under Section - 392 I.P.C., Police Station - Sadar Bazar, District - Agra, pending in the court of Special Judge (D.A.A.)/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.13, Agra.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is nephew of opposite party no.2/complainant and both the parties were residing in the same premises. The allegations of robbery levelled against applicant are wholly false. There is no injury report of complainant. In his statement recorded under Section - 200 Cr.P.C., the complainant has stated that one Durga Prasad and Virendra have reached at the spot but they have not been examined under Section - 202 Cr.P.C.. It is also submitted that the alleged miscreants have been shown less than five in number and thus, no offence under Section - 392 I.P.C. is made out. It was submitted that the applicant is being harassed by the opposite party no.2 and the impugned complaint was filed making false and baseless allegations.

¶9

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 the statements of witnesses, recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C., a prima facie case is made out against the applicant.

¶10

I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

¶11

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 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.

¶12

In the instant matter, the complainant has made made allegation that his brother has passed away and some persons used to visit wife of his late brother. On 10.11.2021 at 11:00 AM one Rakesh and Rajendra were called by the wife of his brother and they along with applicant have assaulted the complainant and that applicant has snatched his mobile phone. The complainant has further alleged that he has sustained injuries and police was informed but he was challaned under Section - 151 Cr.P.C.. The version of complainant is supported by the witnesses examined under Section

¶13

202 Cr.P.C.. In view of material on record, it cannot be said that no prima facie case is made out against the applicant. The submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicant call for determination of 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 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 parties and perusing the impugned complaint and the materials in support of the same, this Court does not find it to be a case which can be determined or gone into in an application under Section - 528 BNSS. Accordingly, the prayer as made above is hereby refused.

¶15

However, it is directed that in case applicant appears/surrenders before the court concerned within a period of three weeks from today and applies for bail, his bail application shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with settled law. For a period of three weeks from today or till the applicant appears/surrenders before the Trial court concerned, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant.

¶16

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

¶17

Order Date :- 18.3.2025 S Rawat

¶18

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

Mayank v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mayank 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