FARHAT KHANversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

           APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 33461 of 2026

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

Counsel for Applicant(s)                     :    Mrityunjay Dwivedi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)                :    G.A.

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

1. This matter is being taken up in the date fixed category.

2. Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned AGA for State.

3. Although notice which was issued earlier has already been served upon
opposite party no.2, in spite of that, no one appeared on behalf of opposite
party no.2 even in the revised call either in person or through counsel. It is
the moral and judicial obligation of any person to appear before the Court
for contesting the matter against whom notices was issued and thereafter
served. In case of non-appearance of opposite party no.2 after service of
notice, there is no option left before the Court, but to consider the prayer so
made through the instant application on the basis of material available on
record as well as the arguments so made by learned counsel for the
applicant.

4. The instant application has been preferred for seeking quashing of the
entire proceedings of Case No.51254 of 2023 (State vs. Farhad Khan)
arising out of Case Crime No.24 of 2023, under sections 406, 504, 506 IPC,
P.S. Civil Lines, District- Aligarh, including charge-sheet dated 24.06.2023
and cognizance/summoning order dated 21.10.2023 passed by learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh.

5. Learned counsel for applicant argued that applicant has been falsely
implicated in the present case by opposite party no.2 only to harass him
since no offence as alleged, has ever been committed by him. It has also
been argued by learned counsel for applicant that the present matter pertains
                                                              NA528 No. 33461 of 2026
                                   2


to certain dispute which has been arisen out of monetary transaction between
the applicant and opposite party no.2 and the same cannot be settled by way
of putting allegations which are frivolous in nature in shape of lodging FIR
against the applicant. It is next submitted that since the monetary dispute has
been given criminal colour and as such the instant criminal proceedings is
abuse of process of law. Learned counsel for applicant further submitted that
there is hardly any evidence against applicant to corroborate him with the
alleged incident. It has also been argued by learned counsel for applicant that
without conducting fair investigation, the concerned Investigating Officer
submitted charge-sheet against applicant 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.

6. Per contra, 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, he could not
dispute the above submissions as raised by learned counsel for applicant.

7. 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 applicant, are related to some
monetary transaction and the same cannot be redressed through implicating
the applicant into unwarranted criminal litigation, 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
                                                              NA528 No. 33461 of 2026
                                   3

     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
     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."

8. 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."

9. 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].

10. 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 the dispute which has been narrated in the FIR clearly
shows that the same be predominantly of civil in nature, which could not be
given a criminal angle, only to harass applicant.
                                                                                           NA528 No. 33461 of 2026
                                                                    4


                                    11. In view thereof, the entire proceedings of Case No.51254 of 2023 (State
                                    vs. Farhad Khan) arising out of Case Crime No.24 of 2023, under sections
                                    406, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Civil Lines, District- Aligarh, including charge-sheet
                                    dated 24.06.2023 and cognizance/summoning order dated 21.10.2023 passed
                                    by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh, are hereby quashed.

                                    12. 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