JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned AGA appearing for respondents No. 1 to 3 and Sri Shivam, learned counsel who has filed Vakalatnama today on behalf of respondent No.4, is taken on record. 2. Under challenge is the FIR dated 29.10.2025 vide Case Crime No.0768 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 115(2), 109(1), 309(4), 351(3), 352, 76, & 324(4) B.N.S. Police Station Para District Lucknow. Further prayer is for a mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to arrest the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned FIR. 3. The case of the petitioner is that initially an FIR dated 16.08.2025 was lodged by Smt. Meera Devi, who had purchased a property alongwith the petitioner. The said FIR had been lodged against the respondent No.4 alongwith several others under the provisions of Sections 351(3), 352 & 191(2) of B.N.S., 2023, a copy of which is Annexure-3 to the writ petition. 4. Subsequent thereto one Sri Shailendra Pratap Rawat, who is the co-sharer of the property along with the petitioner lodged an FIR dated 29.10.2025 under Sections 191(2), 115(2), 109(1), 309(4), 351(3) of B.N.S. 2023 and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 as amended in the year 2015, a copy of which is Annexure-2 to the writ petition. 5. As a counterblast, the respondent No.4 has lodged the impugned FIR dated 29.10.2029, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the writ petition against the petitioner and several others. 6. Raising a challenge to the said FIR, the instant petition has been filed. 7. The arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner are:- (A) Section 354 IPC (corresponding Section 76 of B.N.S.) in which the impugned FIR has been lodged, cannot be invoked against the petitioner as he was not present on the spot, (B) there is a civil dispute pertaining to the same property pending between the parties; (C) the property belongs to the petitioner, who also belongs to scheduled caste; (D) informant who belongs to Other Backward Caste is the aggressor. 8. No other ground has been urged. 9. The aforesaid grounds as taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner are found to be patently fallacious & misconceived. 10. 8. No other ground has been urged. 9. The aforesaid grounds as taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner are found to be patently fallacious & misconceived. 10. The reason is that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent judgement in the case of Muskan vs. Ishaan Khan (Sataniya) and others; 2025 INSC 1287 has held as under: "We are of the view that the High Court has erred in law by embarking upon an enquiry with regard to credibility or otherwise of the allegations in the complaints and the FIR. Normally, for quashing an FIR, it must be shown that there exists no prime facie case against the accused persons. In the present case, from the conjoint reading of the complaints and the FIR, it can be seen that prime facie allegations of harassment and demand of dowry are made out, despite that the High Court quashed the FIR against the private respondents primarily on the ground that the earlier two complaints that were filed by the appellant did not mention the specific instances that happened on 22.07.2021 and 27.11.2022 and the same were later on mentioned in the FIR only as an afterthought and was a counterblast to the legal notice sent by respondent no.1/husband to the appellant as she was not coming back to her matrimonial home. This approach adopted by the High Court, in our considered opinion, amounts to conducting a mini trial." (emphasis by the Court) 11. Likewise the Apex Court in the case of State of Odisha Vs. Pratima Mohanty - (2022) 16 SCC 703 has held that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection and in rare cases. As per settled proposition of law while examining an FIR/complaint quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon any enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness of allegations made in the FIR. 12. Similarly, the Apex Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Aryan Singh and others - (2023) 18 SCC 399 has held that as per the cardinal principle of law, at the stage of quashing of criminal proceedings, the Court is not required to conduct a mini trial. 13. 12. Similarly, the Apex Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Aryan Singh and others - (2023) 18 SCC 399 has held that as per the cardinal principle of law, at the stage of quashing of criminal proceedings, the Court is not required to conduct a mini trial. 13. The said principle has been reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of Niharka Infrastructure Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra and others - (2021) 19 SCC 401 wherein the Apex Court has categorically held that while examining of FIR quashing of which is sought, Court cannot embark upon an inquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR. 14. From a perusal of the recent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Muskan (supra) wherein the aforesaid judgments of Niharka Infrastructure Private Limited (supra) and Pratima Mohanty (supra) have already been referred to, it clearly emerges that the High Court is not required to conduct a mini trial while considering the allegations made in the FIR. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has finally concluded that the High Court should not embark upon an inquiry with regard to the credibility or otherwise of the allegations in the complaints and the FIR. Normally, for quashing of an FIR, it must be shown that there exists no prima facie case against the accused persons. 15. From a perusal of the impugned FIR, it emerges that the petitioner alongwith several others have indulged in an incident. The petitioner has also been specifically named in the incident and F.I.R. as well. 16. The grounds as urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner, if are to be considered by this Court, would primarily amount to holding of a mini trial and an inquiry which has specifically been restrained by the Apex Court in the cases of Pratima Mohanty (supra), Aryan Singh (supra), Niharka Infrastructure Private Limited (supra) and Muskan (supra) inasmuch as the genuineness of the allegations made in the FIR or the credibility of the witnesses etc cannot be seen. From a bare perusal of the FIR, a cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner 17. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the instant criminal writ petition is dismissed.