SMT. SUSHILA DEVI AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

         APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 25967 of 2025

Smt. Sushila Devi And 2 Others
                                                       .....Applicant(s)
                               Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                          .....Opposite
                                                                Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)     : Beerendra Pratap         Singh,    Indra
                               Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s): Ansar Ahmad, G.A.

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the
State and learned counsel for opposite party no. 2. Perused the
record.

2. The present application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed for quashing of the
charge-sheet dated 18.06.2023 as well as the summoning order
dated 06.05.2025 passed in Criminal Case No. 15448 of 2025,
arising out of Case Crime No. 98 of 2023, under Sections 323, 427,
506 and 354 - B IPC, Police Station Kheda, District - Aligarh.

3. Briefly stated, an FIR dated 09.04.2023 was lodged by opposite
party no. 2 alleging therein that one Omprakash, elder brother of the
complainant's husband, had purchased a plot measuring 100 sq.
yards in the year 2002 through an agreement to sell coupled with
possession and had raised construction thereon. It is alleged that the
applicant Sushila Devi, being the seller, avoided execution of the sale
deed. After the death of Omprakash, the property is stated to have
devolved upon his legal heir Deepak, and the complainant was
looking after the said property. On 24.03.2023, the complainant
allegedly found the lock broken and the accused persons demolishing
a portion of the construction. It is further alleged that household
articles including cash of ?20,000 were taken away. A specific
allegation has also been made that co-accused outraged the modesty
of the complainant and tore her clothes, and extended threats.
                                                    NA528 No. 25967 of 2025
                              2


4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants had
been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that
the entire dispute is civil in nature relating to title and possession of
immovable property and has been given a criminal colour. It is further
argued that the allegations are false, exaggerated and inherently
improbable. It is further submitted that no independent witness
supports the allegation under Section 354 IPC. He further submits
that FIR is a counterblast, amounting to abuse of the process of law.
It is further contended that no prima facie offence is made out against
the applicants.

5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for opposite
party no. 2 have opposed the application and submitted that the
allegations in the FIR and material collected during investigation
disclose commission of cognizable offences. It is contended that at
this stage, the Court is not required to examine the correctness or
otherwise of the allegations and the matter requires trial.

6. Before entering into controversy at hand, it is necessary to discuss
the scope of inherent power of High Court. The scope of interference
under Section 528 BNSS is settled down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335,
R.P. Kapur vs. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866 and Neeharika
Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra 2021 SCC
OnLine SC 315, wherein it has been held that the inherent power is
to be exercised sparingly and in exceptional cases.

7. Upon perusal of the FIR, statement of witnesses recorded under
section 161 Cr.P.C. and the material brought on record, this Court
finds that specific allegations have been made against the applicants
regarding trespass, damage to property, removal of articles, criminal
intimidation and outraging the modesty of the complainant. The
contention of the applicants that the dispute is purely civil in nature
cannot be accepted at this stage, inasmuch as the allegations prima
facie disclose commission of cognizable offences. It is well settled
that merely because a civil dispute is involved, the criminal
proceedings cannot be quashed if the ingredients of the offences are
made out. The plea of false implication and exaggeration of
allegations involves disputed questions of fact, which cannot be
                                                                                      NA528 No. 25967 of 2025
                                                                 3


                                    examined in proceedings under Section 528 BNSS.

                                    8. This Court does not find that the present case falls within any of
                                    the categories laid down in Bhajan Lal vs State of Harayana
                                    (Supra).

                                    9. Accordingly, the application is dismissed.

                                    March 17, 2026
                                    Akram
                                                                                (Padam Narain Mishra,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
MOHAMMAD AKRAM
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad