The court reaffirmed that inherent powers under Section 482 should be sparingly exercised to prevent abuse of process, with the necessity to allow factual determinations in a trial context.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 of CrPC/528 of BNS S for quashment of FIR bearing Crime No.193/2024, dated 13/10/2024 registered at P.S. Narayangarh, District Mandsaur, for offence u/s 296, 115(2), 351(3), 3(5), 117(2) of the , 2023.

2. Prosecution story in nutshell is that on 28.9.2024, at about 01:19 pm, the complainant alongwith Sourabh and Pawan appeared in police station and reported that on the same day they have gone to talk with petitioner as to why he is talking against them on the issue of election. Thereafter, the petitioner has used filthy language and in the meantime another person Jitendra came and both have beaten the injured persons and the complainant has received injury on his finger of right hand and he has also received other injury on his body. On the report filed by the complainant, FIR bearing Crime No.193/2024, dated 13/10/2024 has been registered at P.S. Narayangarh, District Mandsaur, for offence u/s 296, 115(2), 351(3), 3(5), 117(2) of the BNSS .

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the complainant has neither beaten the injured persons nor abused them. Actually, it is the complainant party who has assaulted the applicant brutally. The petitioner himself has been made victim of mob lynching and in this regard, the applicant has also lodged FIR against the complainant party bearing Crime No. 192/22024 and the present FIR was lodged thereafter for their defence only. Some photographs are also annexed with the file for showing the fact of mob lynching. It is also alleged that the FIR does not constitute cognizable offence and this case is filed only to take revenge. This Court is required to exercise the extra ordinary power predicated under Section 528 of BNSS and prays for quashment of FIR bearing Crime No.193/2024. He further placed reliance in the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rukmini Narvekar Vs. Vijiya Satardekar, (2008) 14 SCC and in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal , AIR 1992 SC 604 .

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and submitted that there is sufficient material available on record against the applicant The contentions raised by the counsel for the applicant can be considered by the learned Trial Court. Hence, the FIR was correctly lodged, therefore, he prays for rejection of this petition.

5. Heard learned counsel for the both the parties.

6. In view of the rival submissions, I have gone through the record.

7. In this case, MLC has also been conducted regarding injuries received by injured persons. There is a chance of cross-case between both the parties. In view of FIR, statement recorded under Section 161 of CrPC of injured persons and the MLC report of the injured persons, there is prima facie material available against the petitioner on the record, therefore, it cannot be envisaged at this stage that the cross FIR has been made only for creating defence or taking vengeance or revenge from the opposite party. it is pertinent to mention here that at this stage, this Court is not inclined to ponder upon chances of conviction or acquittal.

8. In so far as the powers conferred under Section 528 of BNSS ( Section 482 of Cr.P.C) is concerned it is also well settled that of can only be exercised sparingly in the in rarest of the rare cases where ends of justice demands. It can be used only to prevent the abuse of process of law and to secure the ends of justice. In the case of State of W.B. vs. Narayan K. Patodia , AIR 2000 SC 405, the Hon'ble Apex Court ordained that "Inherent powers of the High Court as recognized in of the Code are reser