NIKHIL MITTALversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

            APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 5276 of 2026

Nikhil Mittal
                                                             .....Applicant(s)
                                   Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                                .....Opposite
                                                                      Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)          :   Ram Adhar Yadav, Satendra Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)     :   G.A.

Court No. - 77
                 HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

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

2. On previous occasion notices were issued to opposite party no.2 and the
same has been reported as served, when the matter has been taken up today
none appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2 either in person or through
counsel. No option left but to consider the prayer as made through instant
application on the basis of documents available in the records as well as
arguments raised by learned counsel for the applicant, although it is moral
and legal obligation upon the opposite party no.2 to put his appearance after
service of notice before any forum of law for protecting and defending the
case when the same has been challenged.

3. Present application has been preferred with the prayer to quash the
chargesheet dated 04.08.2025 and cognizance/summoning order dated
07.10.2025 along with entire criminal proceedings of Case No.10941 of
2025 (State vs. Nikhil Mittal) arising out of Case Crime no.267 of 2024,
under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 IPC, P.S. Sadar Bazar, District-
Saharanpur, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Saharanpur.

4. 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 it is crystal clear from the
narration of FIR that the present matter pertains to civil dispute which has
been given criminal color, whereas the applicant is not even the purchaser or
                                                           NA528 No. 5276 of 2026
                                  2


seller of the disputed property, over which the opposite party no.2 was
claiming that he has been duped with Rs.85 lakh on the assurance of
registration of the alleged land in his name, which has been demonstrated
through registered sale deed appended as Annexure No.2 to the affidavit
filed in support of instant application. Learned counsel for applicant further
submitted that there is hardly any evidence against applicant to corroborate
them with the alleged incident. It has also been argued by learned counsel
for applicant that without conducting fair investigation, the concerned
Investigating Officer submitted chargesheet 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.

4. 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, it has not been
disputed that the matter is purely civil in nature which is with regard to
registration of certain land.

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 applicant, are related to some
fraud conducted with opposite party no.2 with regard to registration of some
land, which was later registered in the name of someone else, 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
                                                        NA528 No. 5276 of 2026
                                3


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."

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 the dispute is with regard to registration of certain land to
someone else, manifests that the opposite party no.2 himself considers the
                                                                                            NA528 No. 5276 of 2026
                                                                   4


                                    dispute being predominantly of civil in nature which could not be given a
                                    criminal angle, only to harass applicant.

                                    9.     In   view       thereof, chargesheet    dated     04.08.2025      and
                                    cognizance/summoning order dated 07.10.2025 along with entire criminal
                                    proceedings of Case No.10941 of 2025 (State vs. Nikhil Mittal) arising out
                                    of Case Crime no.267 of 2024, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 IPC,
                                    P.S. Sadar Bazar, District- Saharanpur, pending in the court of learned Chief
                                    Judicial Magistrate, Saharanpur, are hereby quashed.

                                    10. Accordingly, the present application stands allowed.

                                    May 7, 2026
                                    Saif
                                                                                       (Saurabh Srivastava,J.)




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