RIZWAN AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

           APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 31959 of 2026

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

Counsel for Applicant(s)      : Hasan Parvej, Hasan Sardar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Kuldeep Tripathi, Shiv Shanker
                                Mishra

Court No. - 79
                 HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. This matter is being taken up in the date fixed category. Heard Mr. Mohd.
Raghib Ali, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Hasan Parvez, learned counsel for
applicants and Mr. Shiv Shanker Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party
no.2 as well as learned AGA for State.

2. Present application has been preferred with the prayer to quash the
charge-sheet dated 22.01.2026 and cognizance/summoning order dated
05.05.2026 along with entire criminal proceedings of Case No.28695 of
2026, arising out of Case Crime no.245 of 2025, under Sections 318(4),
115(2), 351(2), 352, 324(4) BNS, P.S. Mainather, District- Moradabad,
pending before learned court of Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial
Magistrate, Court No.2, Moradabad.

3. Learned counsel for applicants argued that applicants have been falsely
implicated in the present case by opposite party no.2 only to harass them,
since no offence as alleged has ever been committed by them. It has also
been argued by learned counsel for applicants that in respect of dispute
which has been narrated in the FIR, Original Suit No.243 of 2026 has
already been filed before learned court of Civil Judge (Junior Division),
Moradabad, which is still pending to be adjudicated and as such lodging the
instant FIR to implicate the applicants into unwarranted criminal litigation
for the grievance in respect of civil dispute is abuse of the process of law.
Learned counsel for applicants further submitted that only to make pressure
and harass the applicants, opposite party no.2 implicated them in the present
criminal proceedings by way of giving criminal colour to the civil dispute.
                                                              NA528 No. 31959 of 2026
                                   2


Learned counsel for applicants next submitted that there is hardly any
evidence against applicants to corroborate them with the alleged incident. It
has also been argued by learned counsel for applicants that without
conducting fair investigation, the concerned Investigating Officer submitted
chargesheet against applicants whereupon without applying its judicial mind,
learned court concerned took cognizance of offence over the said
chargesheet which is abuse of process of law and as such, same may be
quashed.

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2 as
well as learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer sought through the
instant application and rebutted the stands taken up by learned counsel for
applicant by way of submitting that the contentions, which are sought to be
raised on behalf of applicant, would relate to disputed questions of fact, and
would involve appreciation of evidence. It is also submitted that at the time
of taking cognizance, only a prima facie case is to be seen and the court
concerned is not expected to hold a mini trial, but at the same, it has not been
disputed that a civil suit for the dispute narrated in the FIR, has already been
pending.

5. After having the rival contentions raised by learned counsel for parties
and perusal of entire material available on record, it is crystal clear that the
allegations which have been levelled against applicants, are related to certain
piece of land from where a khadinja has been constructed, over which some
dispute has been arisen between the parties and for the same dispute a civil
suit has been filed, which is already pending between the parties, meaning
thereby, dispute between parties is of civil in nature which has been given
colour of criminality. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of A.M. Mohan
Vs. State Represented by SHO and another, [2024 SCC OnLine SC 339]
has held that there is a growing tendency to convert purely civil dispute into
criminal cases. The observations made by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in G.
Sagar Suri v. State of U.P. [(2000) 2 SCC 636] are also relevant which are
as under:-

     "8. It is to be seen if a matter, which is essentially of a civil nature, has
     been given a cloak of criminal offence. Criminal proceedings are not a
     short cut of other remedies available in law. Before issuing process a
     criminal court has to exercise a great deal of caution. For the accused it
     is a serious matter. This Court has laid certain principles on the basis of
     which the High Court is to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of
                                                              NA528 No. 31959 of 2026
                                   3

     the Code. Jurisdiction under this section has to be exercised to prevent
     abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of
     justice."

6. It would be appropriate to mention following paragraph of a judgment
passed by Supreme Court in Naresh Kumar and another vs. The State of
Karnataka and another, [2024 INSC 196], that in similar circumstances
inherent power can be exercised:

     "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 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."

7. The aforementioned legal position has also been considered by a
Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Kamlesh Singh vs. State of
U.P. and others [(2024) 6 ILRA 15].

8. The present case is a fit case where in exercise of inherent power under
Section 528 BNSS, the impugned charge-sheet along with
cognizance/summoning order and entire proceedings of the present case can
be quashed, since there is civil suit pending between the parties, in respect of
alleged dispute narrated in the FIR and as such the same manifests that the
opposite party no.2 himself considers the dispute being predominantly of
civil in nature which could not be given a criminal angle, only to harass
applicants.
                                                                                            NA528 No. 31959 of 2026
                                                                     4


                                    9.   In   view    thereof, the       charge-sheet   dated   22.01.2026     and
                                    cognizance/summoning order dated 05.05.2026 along with entire criminal
                                    proceedings of Case No.28695 of 2026, arising out of Case Crime no.245 of
                                    2025, under Sections 318(4), 115(2), 351(2), 352, 324(4) BNS, P.S.
                                    Mainather, District- Moradabad, pending before learned court of Additional
                                    Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Moradabad, are hereby
                                    quashed.

                                    10. Accordingly, the present application stands allowed.

                                    September 29, 2026
                                    Saif
                                                                                         (Saurabh Srivastava,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad