RAGHVENDRA SINGH AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

         APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 26133 of 2025

Raghvendra Singh And 3 Others
                                                             .....Applicant(s)
                                     Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                                .....Opposite
                                                                      Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)              :   Anil Kumar Chaudhary
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)         :   Ashutosh Kumar Pandey, G.A.

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

1. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Chaudhary, learned counsel for the applicant and
Sri Ashutosh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel or the opposite party no.2 as
well as learned AGA for the State.

2. The present application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed seeking
quashing the entire proceeding in Criminal Case No. 6905 of 2022, arising
out of Case Crime No. 402 of 2021 under Sections 420, 386, 342, 323, 504,
506 and 452 of IPC, police Station Kotwali, District Mau as well as
cognizance /summoning order dated 06.12.2022, pending in the Court of
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mau.

3. Brief facts of the present case is that an FIR was lodged on 06.10.2021 for
the incident allegedly took place on 05.10.2021 for the offences punishable
under sections 420, 386, 342, 323, 504, 506 and 452 of IPC. The applicants
and other persons namely Vijay Singh, Vishal Singh, Poras Singh Baghel
and Raghvendra Singh were carried the business after putting in account of
son of complainant and when this fact came into knowledge of complainant,
he advised his son to left the friendship with them and also return the money
to them and also stopped to meet with them. After some days allegedly Vijay
Singh and his friends again meet with son of complainant and said that they
are starting the business from the money of Vijay Singh and other so the
black money became white. When the complainant and his son refuse to
perform the business they threatened to face dire consequences. On
05.10.2021 they entered in the house of complainant and by abusing them
forcefully obtain the signature of his son on blank stamp paper.
                                                       NA528 No. 26133 of 2025
                                2


4. The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants have
been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submitted that the son
of the complainant namely Sagar Tanwani took money for carrying business
from Vijay Singh and when same was demanded by the Vijay Singh and his
companion. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the present FIR
has been lodged with a malafide intention to exert pressure upon the
applicants in relation to a monetary dispute and to avoid repayment of the
money borrowed. It is further submitted that a compromise has been entered
into between the parties and an affidavit dated 07.10.2021 has been brought
on record as Annexure No.1of Rejoinder Affidavit, which clearly indicates
the existence of the civil dispute regarding the money between the parties.
He further submitted that the statement of the independent witness recorded
under Section 161 Cr.P.C. disclose that only a minor altercation took place
and no specific role or overt act has been assigned to the applicants. He
further submitted that the alleged injuries are simple in nature and the
medical examination was conducted on 06.10.2021, i.e., one day after the
alleged incident at the instance of the informant, which creates doubt about
the prosecution story. He lastly submitted that the dispute between the
parties is regarding the repayment of the money and the opposite party no.2
has given criminal colour to a purely civil dispute by the institution of the
present criminal proceeding.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for Opposite Party No. 2 submits that the
allegations are serious in nature and three persons sustained injuries in the
incident, which is supported by medical evidence. It is further submitted that
the discharge application of the applicants has already been rejected and
charges have been framed. Therefore, at this stage, the present application is
not maintainable and the matter is required to be adjudicated during trial. He
placed reliance upon the judgment passed in the case of Ravindra Pratap
Sahi @Pappu Sahi vs. State of UP. & Others and Ram Shanker Singh vs.
State of U.P. & Others.


6. From the perusal of the record, it appears that an affidavit dated
07.10.2021 has been brought on record which is available as the Annexure
No.1 of the Rejoinder Affidavit in which Opposite Party No. 2 clearly stated
that the he has returned all the money which was paid to his son by the
applicants. The statement of the opposite party no. 2 itself indicates that
there is a dispute regarding payment exist between the parties. Furthermore,
                                                                                                NA528 No. 26133 of 2025
                                                                       3


                                    the alleged incident is stated to have occurred on 05.10.2021, whereas the
                                    affidavit has been executed merely after two days. This circumstance
                                    strongly suggests that the dispute between the parties is rooted in a
                                    monetary/commercial transaction. On the perusal of the statement of the
                                    independent witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., it is evident that
                                    only some minor altercation took place, that does not support the prosecution
                                    version of serious allegations of forcible execution of documents. So far as
                                    the injuries are concerned, though medical reports indicate that three persons
                                    sustained injuries but the same are stated to be simple in nature. Moreover,
                                    the medical examination has been conducted on 06.10.2021, i.e., one day
                                    after the alleged incident, at the behest of the informant. As far as the plea of
                                    opposite party i.e. the discharge application has been rejected, is concerned,
                                    it is necessary to refer the decision of Division Bench of this Court in the
                                    case of Shueb Mahmood Kidwai @ Bobby vs State of U.P. in which the
                                    division bench has made the following observation:-

                                    "No such general proposition of law can be laid down ousting the jurisdiction of this
                                    Court from exercising inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. merely because the
                                    charge had been framed under Section 228 or because of Section 232 Cr.P.C. Each
                                    case is to be dealt with on its own facts based on the parameters of Section 482
                                    Cr.P.C."

                                    7. In view of above discussion, the present application is hereby allowed.

                                    8. The entire proceeding of Criminal Case No. 6905 of 2022, arising out of
                                    Case Crime No. 402 of 2021 under Sections 420, 386, 342, 323, 504, 506
                                    and 452 of IPC, police Station Kotwali, District Mau as well as cognizance
                                    /summoning order dated 06.12.2022, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial
                                    Magistrate, Mau is hereby quashed.

                                    February 24, 2026
                                    Akram
                                                                                       (Padam Narain Mishra,J.)




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