SHAILESH DIXIT AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

           APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 47650 of 2025

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

Counsel for Applicant(s)                                :     Tarun Jha
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)                           :     G.A.

Court No. - 75
                 HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Heard Mr. Tarun Jha, learned counsel for applicants and learned AGA for
the State.

2. 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. It is the legal and moral obligation of any
person to appear before the Court for contesting the matter against whom
notice was issued and thereafter served.

3. Present application has been preferred with the prayer to quash
cognizance/summoning order dated 23.11.2020 along with entire criminal
proceedings of Case No.2430 of 2020 (State Vs. Shailesh Dixit and others),
arising out of Case Crime no. 692 of 2019, under Sections 147, 452, 323,
504, 427 IPC, P.S.- Farrukhabad Kotwali, District Farrukhabad, pending in
the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhabad.

4. 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 the present matter has
been arisen out of a civil dispute and with regard to the same, certain civil
proceedings are going on between the parties. Learned counsel for applicants
has 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. Learned counsel for
applicants further contended that applicant nos.3 and 4 each are having
criminal history of single case wherein final report have already been
submitted. Learned counsel for applicants further submitted that there is
                                                          NA528 No. 47650 of 2025
                                  2

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.

5. Per contra, learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer sought through
the instant application but did not dispute the facts the allegations which
have been levelled against applicants, are related to the civil suits which are
pending before learned concerned courts.

6. 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
present matter has been arisen out of a civil dispute 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 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."

7. 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:
                                                                                           NA528 No. 47650 of 2025
                                                                    3

                                    "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."

                                    8. 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].

                                    9. This Court also notes that despite due service of notice, opposite party
                                    no.2 has chosen not to appear before this Court to contest the present
                                    proceedings. Such non-appearance, even in the revised call, clearly reflects
                                    lack of intent to prosecute or oppose the matter, therefore, in absence of any
                                    rebuttal or assistance from opposite party no.2, the averments made by the
                                    applicants remain uncontroverted.

                                    10. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances,
                                    cognizance/summoning order dated 23.11.2020 along with entire criminal
                                    proceedings of Case No.2430 of 2020 (State Vs. Shailesh Dixit and others),
                                    arising out of Case Crime no. 692 of 2019, under Sections 147, 452, 323,
                                    504, 427 IPC, P.S.- Farrukhabad Kotwali, District Farrukhabad, pending in
                                    the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhabad, are hereby
                                    quashed.

                                    11. Accordingly, the present application stands allowed.
                                    March 19, 2026
                                    Vivek Kr.
                                                                                        (Saurabh Srivastava,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
VIVEK KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad