Shobhawati and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:39287

Court No. - 71

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 8892 of 2025 Applicant :- Shobhawati And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Pravesh Yadav,Shashank Kumar 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

This application U/S 528 BNSS has been filed for quashing of the entire proceedings, including summoning order dated 13.01.2025, of Complaint Case No. 114 of 2019 (Maina Devi Vs. Gulab and others), under Sections 323, 379, 452, 427 I.P.C., Police Station Jalalpur, District Jaunpur, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-Ist, Court No.12, Jaunpur.

¶7

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that the impugned complaint has been lodged by the opposite party no.2 making false and baseless allegations. The dispute was between opposite party no.2 and co-accused Gulab and a civil suit was also pending regarding that dispute. Applicants are neighbours of the said Gulab and they have been falsely implicated with malafide intention in order to obtain possession over the disputed land. In the medical examination report, no visible injury has been shown on body of complainant and only some complaints of pain have been shown. Only general and vague allegations have been levelled against applicants. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that the applicants have been falsely implicated in this case and thus, the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed.

¶8

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.

¶9

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 U/S 528 BNSS. 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.

¶10

In the instant matter perusal of record shows that the opposite party no.2/complainant has inter-alia made allegations that she has purchased land from one Gulab and obtained possession on that land. Later, said Gulab and his family members started demanding more money and in that connection she has filed a civil suit. It was further alleged that when notice was issued to the opposite party in the said civil suit, on 15.03.2019 applicants have trespassed into the house of opposite party no.2 and they have abused and assaulted her. They have damaged her household articles and also took away some jewellery and some other items. Several household articles including ration materials were burnt to ashes. It has also been stated that police was also informed but the parties were challaned under Section 151 Cr.P.C. The version of complainant is supported by witnesses, examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C. In medical examination report, injuries have been shown on body of complainant. In view of material on record, it cannot be said that no prima facie case is made out against the applicants. The submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicant 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 facts and appreciation of evidence or examining the reliability and credibility of the version, does not fall within the

¶11

arena of jurisdiction U/S 528 BNSS.

¶12

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 U/S 528 BNSS. Accordingly the prayer for quashing the impugned complaint and summoning order is hereby refused.

¶13

However, it is directed that in case the applicants appear before the trial Court concerned within a period of three weeks from today and apply for bail, their bail application shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with settled law. It is further directed that for a period of three weeks from today or till the time the applicants appear / surrender before trial Court, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the above noted case

¶14

The application U/S 528 BNSS is finally disposed of in above terms.

¶15

Order Date :- 19.3.2025 RKM

¶16

Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shobhawati and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shobhawati and 2 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