PREMLAL KASHYAP @ PREMLAL MADHESIYA AND 4 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                 APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 24516 of 2025


Premlal Kashyap @ Premlal Madhesiya And 4
Others                                                       .....Applicant(s)
                                    Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s)                :    Rajesh Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)           :    G.A., Sapan Kumar Singh

Court No. - 83
                       HON'BLE SANJIV KUMAR, J.

1. Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr.
Rajesh Kumar, learned AGA for the State, Mr. Sapan Kumar, learned
counsel for opposite party no.2 and perused the record.

2. This application under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 (in short ‘BNSS’), has been filed to quash charge-sheet
dated 21.07.2024, cognizance order dated 21.03.2025 as well as entire
proceedings of Case No. 7199 of 2025 (State Vs. Rampravesh Madhesiya
and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 84 of 2024, under Sections
420, 467, 468, 471, 506 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Hata, District
Kushinagar, pending before the court of learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Kushinagar at Padrauna.

3. Brief facts of the case are that opposite party no.2, Poonam Singh,
daughter of Surendra Singh, lodged an FIR against the applicants, stating
that her father is an habitual drunkard and as a result he is mentally
disturbed. It is alleged that, taking advantage of her father’s condition, the
accused-applicants Ram Pravesh Kashyap, Pradeep Kashyap, Anil
Kashyap and Premlal Kashyap have got a sale deed executed by him on
15.01.2021 of her grand mother's agricultural land bearing Arazi No. 215
area 0.085 hectare, and Arazi No. 260. It is further alleged that they have
got the above sale deed executed on the basis of forged entry of first
informant's father, Surendra Singh, name in khatauni Fasli Year 1426-31
and the above sale deed was got executed by accused-applicant Ram
Pravesh in the name of his mother Smt Satti Devi, who is the wife of
                                                       NA528 No. 24516 of 2025
                                2


Premlal Kashyap, for a sale consideration of only Rs.4,00,000/-. Whereas
on the basis of circle rate, the value of above land amounts to Rs.
43,00,000/-. The informant has further alleged that now first informant's
mother, sister and younger brother are being threatened to vacate the
above land otherwise the entire family members would be killed. Earlier
also, due to mental and physical condition of first informant's father, two
sale deeds were got executed by way of cheating.

4. Upon this information, FIR under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 IPC
was lodged and after investigation, charge-sheet has been filed under the
same Sections against all the named accused-applicants.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have
filed Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 4186 of 2024 against the present
FIR dated 28.01.2024 and the Hon'ble Court vide order dated 19.03.2024
stayed the arrest of the applicants till the filing of police report under
Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. and the same is still pending for disposal. It is
further submitted that the first informant's father Surendra filed a Case
No. 90 of 2018, in which, by order dated 30.01.2018, the name of
Surendra Singh and Narendra Singh, son of Tunni was recorded as heir in
place of deceased Anari Devi in khatauni on Arazi No. 260 and Arazi No.
215. It is argued that the father of the first informant has executed a
registered sale deed in favour of Satti Devi, after taking full consideration.
Smt. Satti Devi filed a mutation proceedings under U.P. Revenue Code,
2006 before Tehsildar, Hata, District Kushinagar and vide order dated
21.11.2023, her name has been recorded in place of Surendra son of
Tunni.

6. Learned counsel for the applicants next submits that Surendra filed a
civil suit before Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kasia, Kushinagar as Case
No. 2215 of 2023, which is pending for disposal. The first informant's
mother Bindu Devi, wife of Surendra, also filed a suit for cancellation of
sale deed dated 15.01.2021 bearing Case No. 2275 of 2022 before the
Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kasia, Kushinagar, which is also pending.

7. It is contended on behalf of the applicants that applicant no.1, Premlal,
lodged an FIR on 16.01.2024 in regard to an incident dated 12.01.2024
registered as Case Crime No. 53 of 2024, under Sections 420, 467, 465,
                                                         NA528 No. 24516 of 2025
                                 3


471, 506 IPC against the first informant and her brother Arjun Singh for
assault and hurling abuses. It is submitted that to harass the applicants and
their family members, the present FIR has been lodged on false and
concocted facts. It is also submitted that the dispute is essentially civil in
nature, which has been given criminal colour. The applicants have never
forged any document nor manipulated the extract of khatauni as alleged
by the first informant. Lastly, it is submitted that the learned Magistrate
has not applied his judicial mind while taking cognizance and summoning
the accused and the impugned cognizance and summoning order is
mechanical in nature.

8. Learned counsel for the applicants has relied upon a decision of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in A.M. Mohan Vs. State, (2024) 12 SCC 181,
with regard to inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482
Cr.P.C. (Section 528 BNSS) and relevant paragraph no. 19 is quoted
herein below:

      19. The Court has also noted in Indian Oil Corporation Vs.
      NEPC India Ltd. (2006) 6 SCC 736, the concern with regard to
      a growing tendency in business circles to convert purely civil
      disputes into criminal cases. The Court observed that this is
      obviously on account of a prevalent impression that civil law
      remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protect the
      interests of lenders/creditors. The Court also recorded that
      there is an impression that if a person could somehow be
      entangled in a criminal prosecution, there is a likelihood of
      imminent settlement. The Court, relying on the law laid down
      by it in the case of G.Sagar Suri and Another v. State of U.P.
      and others (2000) 2 SCC 636, held that any effort to settle civil
      disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence,
      by applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be
      deprecated and discouraged. The Court also observed that
      though no one with a legitimate cause or grievance should be
      prevented from seeking remedies available in criminal law, a
      complainant who initiates or persists with a prosecution, being
      fully aware that the criminal proceedings are unwarranted and
      his remedy lies only in civil law, should himself be made
      accountable, at the end of such misconceived criminal
      proceedings, in accordance with law.”

9. He has also relied upon a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Punit
Beriwala Vs. The State of NCT of Delhi and others, 2025 0 Supreme
                                                          NA528 No. 24516 of 2025
                                 4


(SC) 726, with regard to inherent jurisdiction of High Court under Section
482 Cr.P.C. and relevant paragraph no. 28 reads as below:

      “MERE INSTITUTION OF CIVIL PROCEEDINGS
      CANNOT ACT AS A BAR TO INVESTIGATION OF
      COGNIZABLE OFFENCES

      28. It is trite law that mere institution of civil proceedings is
      not a ground for quashing the FIR or to hold that the dispute
      is merely a civil dispute. This Court in various judgments, has
      held that simply because there is a remedy provided for
      breach of contract, that does not by itself clothe the Court to
      conclude that civil remedy is the only remedy, and the
      initiation of criminal proceedings, in any manner, will be an
      abuse of the process of the court. This Court is of the view that
      because the offence was committed during a commercial
      transaction, it would not be sufficient to hold that the
      complaint did not warrant a further investigation and if
      necessary, a trial. [See: Syed Aksari Hadi Ali Augustine Imam
      v. State (Delhi Admin.) (2009) 5 SCC 528, Lee Kun Hee v.
      State of UP (2012) 3 SCC 132 and Trisuns Chemicals v.
      Rajesh Aggarwal (1999) 8 SCC 686.”

10. Learned counsel for the applicants has next relied upon the decision of
Naresh Kumar and another Vs. The State of Karnataka, (2024) 0
Supreme (SC) 221 with regard to offence under Section 406, 420 IPC
and the relevant paragraph no.5 and 6 of the judgment are as below:

      “5. Under these circumstances, we are of the considered view
      that this is a case where the inherent powers should have been
      exercised by the High Court under Section 482 of the
      Criminal Procedure Code as the powers are there to stop the
      abuse of the process and to secure the ends of justice.

      6. In the case of Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand
      (2013) 11 SCC 673, this Court recognized that although the
      inherent powers of a High Court under Section 482 of the
      Code of Criminal Procedure should be exercised sparingly,
      yet the High Court must not hesitate in quashing such
      criminal proceedings which are essentially of a civil nature.
      This is what was held:

             “12. While exercising its jurisdiction under Section
             482 of the Code the High Court has to be cautious.
             This power is to be used sparingly and only for the
             purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any
                                                         NA528 No. 24516 of 2025
                                5


             court or otherwise to secure ends of justice.
             Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence
             or not depends upon the nature of facts alleged
             therein. Whether essential ingredients of criminal
             offence are present or not has to be judged by the
             High Court. A complaint disclosing civil
             transactions may also have a criminal texture.
             But the High Court must see whether a dispute
             which is essentially of a civil nature is given a
             cloak of criminal offence. In such a situation, if a
             civil remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted as
             has happened in this case, the High Court should
             not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings to
             prevent abuse of process of the court.” (emphasis
             supplied).

             Relying upon the decision in Paramjeet Batra
             (supra), this Court in Randheer Singh v. State of
             U.P. (2021) 14 SCC 626, observed that criminal
             proceedings cannot be taken recourse to as a
             weapon of harassment. In Usha Chakraborty &
             Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Anr., 2023 SCC
             OnLine SC 90, relying upon Paramjeet Batra
             (supra) it was again held that where a dispute
             which is essentially of a civil nature, is given a
             cloak of a criminal offence, then such disputes can
             be quashed, by exercising the inherent powers
             under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
             Procedure.”

11. In support of his contention that the dispute is essentially civil in
nature, learned counsel for the applicants has relied upon the decision of
Inder Mohan Goswami Vs. State of Uttaranchal (2007) 12 SCC 1. The
relevant paragraph nos. 22, 23 and 24 are extracted as below:

      “22. The veracity of the facts alleged by the appellants and the
      respondents can only be ascertained on the basis of evidence
      and documents by a civil court of competent jurisdiction. The
      dispute in question is purely of civil nature and respondent
      no.3 has already instituted a civil suit in the court of Civil
      Judge. In the facts and circumstances of this case, initiating
      criminal proceedings by the respondents against the
      appellants is clearly an abuse of the process of the court.
      Scope and ambit of courts’ powers under section 482 Cr.P.C.

      23. This court in a number of cases has laid down the scope
                                                           NA528 No. 24516 of 2025
                                  6


      and ambit of courts’ powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. Every
      High Court has inherent power to act ex debito justitiae to do
      real and substantial justice, for the administration of which
      alone it exists, or to prevent abuse of the process of the court.
      Inherent power under section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised:

      (i) to give effect to an order under the Code;

      (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and

      (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice.

      24. Inherent powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. though wide
      have to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great
      caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests
      specifically laid down in this section itself. Authority of the
      court exists for the advancement of justice. If any abuse of the
      process leading to injustice is brought to the notice of the
      court, then the Court would be justified in preventing injustice
      by invoking inherent powers in absence of specific provisions
      in the Statute.”

12. Lastly, learned counsel for the applicants has relied upon a decision of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sardar Ali Khan Vs. State of U.P., (2020)
AIR (SC) 626 in support of his contention that the dispute is essentially
civil in nature. The relevant paragraph no.9 is extracted below:

      “9. At the outset it is to be noted that the appellant has
      purchased the plot in question by sale deed dated 29th
      December,1993 which was registered on 5th January, 1994.
      The father of the 2nd respondent died on 3rd December, 1997.
      Though the registered sale deed is of 1994, the 2nd
      respondent filed suit which is pending in O.S. No.160 of 2008,
      only in the year 2008 seeking cancellation of sale deed
      alleging that the aforesaid sale deed was got executed by the
      appellant and his brother, by making use of the acquaintance
      with his father, in a false and fraudulent manner. There is no
      allegation of impersonation or forgery of signatures in the suit
      filed by the 2nd respondent. It is the case of the appellant that
      even the 2nd respondent is a signatory to the sale deed as a
      witness. Though the suit was filed in the year 2008, the 2 nd
      respondent has chosen to file the criminal complaint only in
      the year 2012 alleging forgery and impersonation. With
      regard to the validity of the sale deed, matter is seized up
      before the competent civil court and it is for the civil court to
      decide whether any fraud is played or not by the appellant, on
                                                          NA528 No. 24516 of 2025
                                 7


      the late father of the 2nd respondent for obtaining the sale
      deed. When the very same issue is seized up before the civil
      court, the 2nd respondent cannot pursue criminal proceedings
      against the appellant for alleged offence under Section 418,
      419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. Although, it is contended by
      the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent that complaint
      filed is not barred by limitation but at the same time it
      appears, there is no reason for lodging private complaint in
      the year 2012. The sale deed on which basis the title and
      possession is claimed by the appellant was registered on 5 th
      January, 1994, suit itself is filed nearly after 14 years. Even
      after filing of the suit on 24 th August, 2008 there is further
      about 4 years’ delay in filing the criminal complaint against
      the appellant herein. Allowing the proceedings to go on
      against the appellant who is stated to be about 87 years, in the
      above set of facts, is nothing but abuse of the process. It is to
      be noted that there is no allegation of impersonation and
      forgery of the signatures in the suit filed by the 2nd
      respondent. In any event, when the suit filed by the 2nd
      respondent for cancellation of sale deed, is pending
      consideration before the competent court of law, the 2nd
      respondent cannot pursue his complaint in criminal
      proceedings by improving his case. Having regard to serious
      factual disputes which are of civil nature, for which civil suits
      are pending, allowing the 2nd respondent to pursue his
      complaint in criminal proceedings is nothing but abuse of the
      process of law. For the aforesaid reasons we are of the
      considered view that the criminal proceedings are fit to be
      quashed by allowing this appeal.”

13. Per contra, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has submitted that
the sale consideration depicted in the sale deed is much less, whereas the
circle rate and the market value of the disputed property is much higher,
which shows that the transaction was not fair. It is also submitted that the
name of Surendra Singh, the seller, was not recorded in khatauni in Fasli
year 1426-31 on land Gata No. 215. It is contended that forged as well as
correct copy of khatauni is part of case diary. Even under the reply to RTI
application, it is mentioned that the name of Surendra Singh was not
recorded in the khatauni of Fasli year 1420-31.

14. In view of the above, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits
that the alleged offence was committed by the applicants, therefore, this
application has no force and it is liable to be dismissed.
                                                       NA528 No. 24516 of 2025
                                8


15. In view of the submissions of both the parties and upon a perusal of
record, it is clear that in the present case, charge-sheet has been filed
against the applicants under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 IPC. It is
submitted on behalf of the applicants that the dispute is essentially civil in
nature and opposite party no.2's father has filed a Case No. 90 of 2018,
whereby vide order dated 30.01.2018, the name of Surendra and Narendra
was entered in place of Anari Devi over Arazi Nos. 260 and 215. It is also
submitted that the seller Surendra had filed Suit No. 2215 of 2023 and
opposite party no.2's mother, Bindu Devi, has filed a civil suit for
cancellation of sale deed as Case No. 2275 of 2022, therefore, it is the
civil court, which is to decide the dispute between the parties and criminal
colour has been given to it by the first informant.

16. I do not agree with this submission of learned counsel for the
applicants as the allegations against the applicants is that they
manipulated and thus, got forged entry in the khatauni, whereby the name
of Surendra was depicted in the khatauni and due to poor mental and
physical condition of the opposite party no.2's father, they have got sale
deed executed in their favour.

17. A perusal of record shows that the Investigating Officer perused the
record from the office of Tehsildar and S.D.M., Hata, Kushinagar and
also obtained report from office of S.D.M., Hata, Kushinagar, which
reveals that the name of Surendra was not entered on land Arazi No. 215
in khatauni for Fasli year 1426-31. The seller had produced the copy of
khatauni before the Sub-Registrar at the time of registry of the sale deed
and the name of ‘Narendra’ was removed and on its place the name of
‘Surendra’ was entered and thus, forgery was committed by the applicants
in the records to gain undue advantage.

18. Therefore, the dispute between the parties is such, which has both
civil and criminal elements, and mere pendency of civil suit would not
come in a way to initiate and proceed with criminal proceedings against
the applicants.

19. Here, it is relevant to mention that it is the case of the applicants that
the sale consideration shown in the alleged sale deed was also much less
than the actual market value and circle rate of the disputed land, which
                                                                                          NA528 No. 24516 of 2025
                                                                    9


                                    raises suspicion that the transaction was not fair.

                                    20. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the learned
                                    Magistrate has not applied his judicial mind while taking cognizance and
                                    summoning the accused. In this regard, I have perused the cognizance and
                                    summoning order, which shows that the learned Magistrate after perusing
                                    the charge-sheet, case diary and other prosecution papers, found prima
                                    facie case and, thereafter, summoned the applicants. Therefore, it cannot
                                    be said that the learned Magistrate has not applied his judicial mind while
                                    taking cognizance and summoning the accused. Detailed examination of
                                    the evidence is not required by the Magistrate, at the time of taking
                                    cognizance, therefore, this submission advanced on behalf of the
                                    applicants has no force. The allegations levelled in the FIR and the
                                    evidence collected by the Investigating Officer, disclose prima facie
                                    commission of cognizable offence by the applicants.

                                    21. In view of the above discussion, this application lacks merit and it is,
                                    accordingly, dismissed.



                                                                                            (Sanjiv Kumar,J.)
                                    May 6, 2026
                                    Subham




Digitally signed by :-
SUBHAM KUSHWAHA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad