1. Heard Shri Rakesh Pathak, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri V.N. Mishra, Advocate, holding brief of Shri Mahendra Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and Shri Rabindra Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The present application has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Case No. 8784 of 2025 (State vs. Sarfraj Ahmad), arising out of Case Crime No. 171 of 2025, under Sections 64, 74, 76, 115(2), 352, 351(3) of B.N.S., Police Station Tarkulawa, District Deoria, as well as chargesheet dated 03.07.2025 and cognizance/summoning order dated 31.07.2025, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 19, Deoria.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The whole prosecution story is totally false and frivolous. The F.I.R. was lodged with inordinate delay of five months and twenty eight days, on 11.05.2025, whereas the alleged incident had taken place on 19.12.2024. No explanation has been offered by the prosecution in respect of delay in lodging the F.I.R. The applicant is an elderly and infirm person and he is not physically capable of committing an offence of rape. The daughter-in-law of the applicant has lodged a false F.I.R. against the applicant on account of property dispute. It is further submitted that earlier on 19.12.2024, the applicant and his son, were challaned under Sections 170, 126, 135 of B.N.S.S. and by that time, no allegation of rape was levelled. The victim happens to be real daughter-in-law of the applicant. The present F.I.R. was lodged with mala fide intention.

4. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that no prima facie offence is made out from perusal of statements of the victim, recorded during the course of investigation. She reiterated her version already mentioned in the F.IR., when her statements were recorded under Section 180 of B.N.S.S. and 183 of B.N.S.S. It is also submitted that since the F.I.R. was lodged after a long delay, therefore, the same cannot be accepted to be true. There are a lot of contradictions in the statements of the victim, recorded under Section 180 of B.N.S.S. and 183 of B.N.S.S. The medical examination report of the victim was prepared on 13.05.2025, wherein no definite opinion regarding sexual assault was given by the concerned doctor. As per the age certificate, issued by the Chief Medical Officer, Deoria, on 20.05.2025, the victim was aged about 25 years.

5. It is further submitted that the marriage of the son of the applicant was solemnized with the victim on 23.03.2021, and after some time they claimed their share in the property which was declined by the applicant and on account of that dispute, the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. Earlier an F.I.R. was lodged by the applicant against his son on 12.04.2024, which was registered as Case Crime No. 143 of 2024, under Section 323, 504, 506 of I.P.C. at P.S. Tarkulwa, District Deoria. As a counter blast of the F.I.R. dated 12.04.2024, the present malicious criminal prosecution was launched by the victim by lodging the present F.I.R. on 11.05.2025. The victim of the present case has already lodged an F.I.R. against the applicant on 04.07.2024, under Sections 498-A, 323, 354-gha, 504, 506 of I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, which was registered as Case Crime No. 280 of 2024, at P.S. Tarkulwa, District Deoria. When the victim could not send the applicant behind bars in the aforesaid F.I.R. dated 04.07.2024, another F.I.R. was lodged by the victim, against the applicant on 11.05.2025. He lastly prayed that the chargesheet as well as the cognizance order be quashed, as a fair investigation was not conducted by the investigating officer, and the learned trial court wrongly and illegally took cognizance of the offence without the application of judicial mind.

6. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, opposed the prayer and stated that prestige of the victim and her family, was at stake, therefore, the F.I.R. was not lodged just after the incident. The informant/victim had already moved an application for registration of F.I.R. on 24.01.2025, however, the same was registered on 11.05.2025. The victim cannot be blamed for the delay caused in registration of the F.I.R., as she had already given application to the police on 24.01.2025. It was the police who under the influence of the applicant, were not registering the F.I.R. The victim has categorically stated in her statements recorded under Section 180 of B.N.S.S. and 183 of B.N.S.S., that she was subjected to rape by the applicant when she was alone in the house. She further added that, on 19.12.2024, at 8:00 am, when she was alone in the house, the applicant entered her house and forcibly committed rape upon her. Upon the hue and cry of the victim, the neighbours arrived at the place of occurrence, whereupon the applicant ran away. After some time, the husband of the applicant reached the house and the entire incident was narrated to him by the victim. However, he was also beaten by the applicant when he raised his voice. The statement of the son of the applicant was also recorded and he also supported the prosecution version and stated that the victim was subjected to rape by his father in his absence. When statement of the victim was recorded before the learned magistrate under Section 183 of B.N.S.S., she again reiterated her earlier version and there are no material discrepancies in the statements of the victim.

7. It is further submitted by the learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, that statement of the wife of the applicant, was also recorded during the course of investigation and she also stated that her daughter-in-law was subjected to rape by her husband on 19.12.2024 at 8:00 am. Her husband tried to kill her son. It was further stated by the wife of the applicant that her husband kept an evil eye over her daughter-in-law and he used to compel the victim to maintain physical relationship with him. It is further submitted that there was no reason for wife of the applicant to give statement against him if such an incident was not committed by him. It is also submitted that the applicant is not an old man and at the time of the incident, he was aged about 48 years, which is clear from perusal of his Aadhar Card, wherein date of birth is mentioned as 02.03.1977. A prima facie offence is made out from perusal of statements of witnesses and no interference is warranted, at this stage.

8. It is further submitted by the learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 that in a case of rape, testimony of a prosecutrix stands at par with an injured witness and at the stage of quashing, the court cannot meticulously examine the evidence on record. The court has to see at this stage as to whether a prima facie offence is made out or not. If a prima facie offence is made out, no question of quashing the proceedings arises. The disputed questions of fact cannot be decided in Application U/S 528 of B.N.S.S. The delay in lodging the F.I.R., has been properly explained. The applicant is an influential person of the locality, therefore, the police did not register the F.I.R. against him and they tried to save him. The investigating officer, after collection of evidence, rightly and correctly submitted chargesheet in this case. The learned court concerned did not commit any illegality in taking the cognizance of the offence.

9. I have considered the rival submissions and have 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. / 528 B.N.S.S. 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. Guidelines are as follows:-

                  "(1) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety to do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

                  (2) Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 156(2) of the Code.

                  (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

                  (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

                  (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can every reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

                  (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

                  (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

11. In the case of R. Kalyani v. Janak C. Mehta and Others reported in 2009 (1) SCC 516, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:-

                  "(1) The High Court ordinarily would not exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash a criminal proceeding and, in particular, a First Information Report unless the allegations contained therein, even if given face value and taken to be correct in their entirety, disclosed no cognizable offence.

                  (2) For the said purpose, the Court, save and except in very exceptional circumstances, would not look to any document relied upon by the defence.

                  (3) Such a power should be exercised very sparingly. If the allegations made in the FIR disclose commission of an offence, the court shall not go beyond the same and pass an order in favour of the accused to hold absence of any mens rea or actus reus.

                  (4) If the allegation discloses a civil dispute, the same by itself may not be a ground to hold that the criminal proceedings should not be allowed to continue."

12. The said decision has also been followed by the Apex Court in the case of Kamlesh Kumari and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. reported in 2015 AIR SCW 3700.

13. The above stated case laws are applicable in the present case and in view of that legal position, impugned charge-sheet and proceedings arising from it, are not liable to be quashed on the grounds raised by the learned counsel for the applicant. It is apparent from the FIR and material on record that a prima facie cognizable offence is made out against the applicant. The case of the applicant does not fall in any of the category enumerated by the Apex Court through various judicial pronouncement for quashing of FIR/charge-sheet. It is well settled that at this stage, this Court has to eschew itself from embarking upon a roving enquiry into the details of the case. It is also not advisable to adjudge whether the case shall ultimately end in conviction or not. Only a prima facie satisfaction of the court about the existence of sufficient ingredients constituting the offence is required in order to see whether the proceedings deserves quashing.

14. As noted in the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal (supra), power of quashing of FIR or proceedings should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases. In case of Rupan Deol Bajaj v. K.P.S. Gill; reported in (1995) SCC (Cri) 1059, Rajesh Bajaj v. State of NCT of Delhi; reported in (1999) 3 SCC 259 and M/S. Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. M/S. Biological E Ltd. & Ors; reported in 2000 SCC (Cri) 615, the Apex Court clearly held that if a prima facie case is made out disclosing the ingredients of the offence, Court should not quash the complaint/ FIR/charge-sheet. However, it was held that if the allegations do not constitute any offence as alleged and appear to be patently absurd and improbable, Court should not hesitate to quash the complaint. The note of caution was reiterated that while considering such petitions, the Courts should be very circumspect, conscious and careful. Thus, there is no controversy about the legal proposition that in case, a prima facie case is made out, the proceedings cannot be quashed. Here it would also be pertinent to mention that questions of fact cannot be examined by this Court in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. / 528 B.N.S.S.

15. In State of Orissa v. Saroj Kumar Sahoo (2005) 13 SCC 540, it has been held that probabilities of the prosecution version cannot be analysed at this stage. Likewise, the allegations of mala fides of the informant are of secondary importance. The relevant passage reads thus: (SCCp. 550, para 11)

                  "11......It would not be proper for the High Court to analyse the case of the complainant in the light of all probabilities in order to determine whether a conviction would be sustainable and on such premises arrive at a conclusion that the proceedings are to be quashed. It would be erroneous to assess the material before it and conclude that the complaint cannot be proceeded with."

16. From the above stated case law, it is apparent that 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 482 Cr.P.C. / 528 B.N.S.S. In view of the material on record it can not be held that the impugned criminal proceeding are manifestly attended with mala fide and maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused- applicant and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.

17. The investigating Officer conducted the investigation in this case, and after due investigation, submitted the charge-sheet. Since there are specific allegations against the applicant in the FIR as well as in the statements of witnesses, a prima facie offence is made out against the applicant. At this stage, this Court cannot see whether a conviction would be sustainable on the basis of evidence adduced by the prosecution during the course of trial. It would be erroneous to assess the material, collected by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation. The quality of evidence cannot be appreciated by this Court in this jurisdiction. It is the duty of the trial court who will evaluate the evidence and pronounce the judgement on the basis of material before him.

18. The High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. / 528 B.N.S.S. cannot conduct a mini trial. Whether the testimony of the witnesses is trustworthy or not, has to be ascertained from the evidence of the witnesses, recorded in the trial court. Such an exercise is not permissible in this jurisdiction. The scope of interference, while quashing the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. / 528 B.N.S.S. and that too for a serious offence is very limited. The court would exercise its power to quash the proceedings only if it finds that taking the case at its face value, no case is made out at all. It is not permissible for this Court under this jurisdiction to go into the correctness or otherwise of the material placed by the prosecution in the charge-sheet.

19. 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. In view of the aforesaid, no case for quashing the impugned proceedings or impugned order is made out. The present application lacks merit and thus, liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the instant application is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.