Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:254 Court No. - 18 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6584 of 2013 Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Gupta And Anr. Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P Thru Principal Secy. Home Deptt. And Ors. Counsel for Applicant :- Gaya Deep Singh,Kameshwar Nath Gupta,Yogendra Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Alok Kumar Srivastava,Imran Ahmad Abbasi,M. Waris Farooqui Hon'ble Manoj Bajaj,J. Applicants being accused have approached this Court through this application under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of the charge sheet dated 06th January, 2011 filed under Section 173(2) Code of Criminal Procedure in Case Crime No. 1353 of 2010, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 552, 352, 323, 504, 504 IPC, Police Station Kotwali, Balrampur, District Balrampur (Annexure No. 1). Learned counsel for the applicants-accused has argued that the opposite party no. 4 has falsely implicated the applicants in the above criminal case and the dispute between the parties, if any, is purely of civil nature. While referring to the FIR, learned counsel submits that the complainant has claimed himself to be the owner of immovable property measuring 2 Bigha, 14 Biswa, which was purchased by his father from the vendor Maharaja Dharmendra Pratap Singh, and the accused persons with the assistance of co-accused Kenhu Ram (Lekhpal) illegally got the mutation of said land entered in their names. Learned counsel submits that according to the complainant, the said entry was later on reversed and an enquiry was directed against the Lekhpal, but as per the complainant, on 20th August, 2010, the accused persons came to the immovable property and had brought cement, tiles and sand etc., where the complainant resisted and the accused persons gave beatings to him. Learned counsel submits that the same property which is claimed by the complainant under his ownership was in fact purchased by Shivaji Gupta, father of the applicants, therefore, it is evident that the prosecution of the applicants is nothing, but an abuse of the process of law. He prays for quashing of the FIR. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the applicants-accused was repeatedly asked to furnish the details of the respective sale deeds relied upon by the rival parties to claim their ownership upon the same piece of immovable property, as they are claiming title under Maharaja Dharmendra Pratap Singh (vendor). Though, the civil litigation has reached at the stage of second appeal, as the decree passed against the applicants is under challenge, but the said material has not been placed on record. In this background, this Court is not inclined to exercise the inherent powers under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, as apart from the alleged civil dispute, the allegations in the FIR also constitute an offence against human body. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharmatma Singh vs. Harminder Singh & Ors. passed in Criminal Appeal No.1126 of 2011 (3) RCR Criminal 38 has observed that where the charge sheet under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. is yet to be considered by the Magistrate, the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. ordinarily should be avoided. Since, the grounds and issues raised in this application can also be effectively raised by the applicants before the Magistrate at the stage of considering the final report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., therefore, without meaning any expression of opinion on the merits of the case, the application is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 3.1.2025 Brijesh Digitally signed by :- BRIJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- BRIJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench