AMAVAS PAL AND 8 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

             HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                 APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 13143 of 2025

Amavas Pal And 8 Others
                                                                .....Applicant(s)

                                    Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                           .....Opposite Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)                     :   Ravi Kant Verma
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)                :   G.A., Shri Kant Shukla

Along with :
1. Application U/s 528 Bnss No. 18286 of 2025:
     Devender Pal
                                    Versus
     State of U.P. and another


Court No. - 82
                    HON'BLE PADAM NARAIN MISHRA, J.

1. Both the applications shall be heard and decided together.

2. Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 has filed counter affidavit, which
is taken on record.

3. Heard Sri Arpit Mandhyan, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Ravi Kant
Verma, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shri Kant Shukla, learned
counsel for opposite party no. 2, learned AGA for the State and perused the
record.

4. The present application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 has been filed for quashing of Cognizance
order dated 02.01.2025 and Charge-sheet dated 17.08.2024 and entire
proceedings of Criminal Case No. 213 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime
No. 343 of 2024, under Sections 191(2), 115(2), 352, 351 and 324(4) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

5. Brief facts of the case are that an FIR was lodged on 25.07.2024 against
the applicants-accused alleging that the informant had constructed a
toilet behind his house for the last 35 years which was demolished by the
applicants along with other co-accused persons on 21.07.2024. When the
informant and his wife objected with regard to the same, they were assaulted
and threatened to kill. After investigation, the Investigating Officer has
                                                         NA528 No. 13143 of 2025
                                 2

submitted charge-sheet on 17.08.2024, upon which, the learned Magistrate
has taken cognizance of the offence on 02.01.2025 and issued summons
against the accused-applicants.

6. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants have been
falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motives. It is further
submitted that the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature,
arising out of ownership and possession of land, and the same has been
given a colour of criminality. It is further submitted that the informant side
was, in fact, the aggressor and had assaulted the women of the applicants'
family, namely Paramshila and Premshila, resulting in injuries.

7. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that, in
respect of the said incident, an application dated 22.07.2024 was moved
before the concerned police authorities, however, no First Information
Report was registered. Being aggrieved with the same, the one of the
applicants namely, Premshila has filed an application under Section 175(3)
of the BNSS in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoria, which was
dismissed on technical ground i.e. age of the applicant has not been
mentioned and incomplete affidavit has been filed by her. It is further
submitted that there is an unexplained delay of four days in lodging the
impugned FIR, which casts serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution
case. Learned counsel for the applicants has further submitted that there is
no medical evidence on record to substantiate the allegations made in the
FIR and, as such, the essential ingredients to attract the offence under
Section 115(2) of the BNS are not made out. Lastly, it is submitted that the
applicant is the owner of the land in dispute by way of a registered sale-
deed, and thus, the present criminal proceedings are nothing but an abuse of
the process of law and the same is liable to be quashed by this Court.

8. Per contra, learned AGA for the State and learned counsel for opposite
party no. 2, have vehemently opposed the submissions advanced on behalf
of the applicants. It is submitted that from the perusal of the First
Information Report, it discloses the commission of cognizable offences and,
at this stage, the allegations cannot be said to be inherently improbable or
absurd so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent
jurisdiction. It is further submitted that the dispute sought to be projected by
the applicants as a purely civil dispute is misconceived. The FIR specifically
pertains to land comprised in Gata No. 82K, whereas the applicants are
placing reliance upon Gata No. 95K, which is entirely distinct. This,
according to the learned AGA, clearly demonstrates that the defence set up
by the applicants is not only factually disputed but also prima facie
untenable.
                                                          NA528 No. 13143 of 2025
                                  3

9. I have considered the rival submission made by the learned counsel for the
parties.

10. The scope and ambit of interference by this Court under Section 528 of
the BNSS/Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., is no longer res integra and stands
crystallized through a catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

11. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Hon'ble
Apex Court has illustratively laid down the categories of cases wherein the
extraordinary jurisdiction for quashing may be exercised. However, it has
been simultaneously cautioned that such power is to be exercised sparingly,
with circumspection, and only in rarest of rare cases, so as to prevent abuse
of the process of law or to secure the ends of justice.

12. Further, in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra
2021 SCC Online SC 315, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated and
further clarified the limitations on the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. It has
been held, inter alia, that where the allegations made in the FIR disclose the
commission of a cognizable offence, the Court should ordinarily refrain
from interfering at the threshold. It has also been emphasized that disputed
questions of fact, which require appreciation of evidence, cannot be
adjudicated in proceedings for quashing, as the same fall within the domain
of the trial court. Thus, the settled legal position is that at the stage of
considering an application for quashing, the Court is only required to
examine whether a prima facie case is made out on the basis of the
allegations in the FIR, without embarking upon a detailed enquiry into the
truthfulness or otherwise of such allegations.

13. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court
finds that the First Information Report contains specific and categorical
allegations against the applicants with regard to demolition of the boundary
wall, assault, and criminal intimidation. The allegations, on their face, prima
facie, disclose the commission of cognizable offences and cannot be said to
be inherently improbable or absurd at this stage. Secondly, the contention of
the applicants that the dispute is purely civil in nature does not, by itself,
warrant quashing of the criminal proceedings, particularly when the FIR
contains clear allegations of use of criminal force and intimidation. It is well
settled that merely because a civil remedy is available, the same does not bar
criminal proceedings if the ingredients of a criminal offence are otherwise
made out. Thirdly, the defence sought to be raised by the applicants, namely
that the informant side was the aggressor and that the applicants' side had
sustained injuries, pertains to disputed questions of fact which cannot be
adjudicated upon in proceedings under Section 528 BNSS. The same can
                                                                                              NA528 No. 13143 of 2025
                                                                     4

                                    only be examined on the basis of evidence led during trial. Fourthly, the
                                    controversy relating to Gata No. 82K and Gata No. 95K involves
                                    adjudication of title and possession over the land in dispute, which are
                                    purely factual issues requiring appreciation of documentary as well as oral
                                    evidence. The same cannot be conclusively determined in the present
                                    proceedings. Fifthly, the submission regarding delay in lodging the FIR and
                                    the alleged absence of medical evidence are also matters which fall within
                                    the realm of appreciation of evidence and do not, by themselves, constitute
                                    valid grounds for quashing the proceedings at the threshold.

                                    14. In the light of foregoing discussions and the facts and circumstances of
                                    the present case, no ground is made out to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of
                                    this Court under Section 528 BNSS for quashing of the criminal proceedings
                                    against the applicants. As such, the prayer for quashing the entire
                                    proceedings of criminal case is hereby refused.

                                    15. Accordingly, both the present applications filed on behalf of the
                                    applicants under Section 528 BNSS are hereby dismissed.

                                    16. Interim application, if any, stands disposed of.

                                    February 24, 2026
                                    v.k. updh.
                                                                                           (Padam Narain Mishra,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
VINOD KUMAR UPADHYAY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad