Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:89997 Court No. - 87 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 15903 of 2016 Applicant :- Mithilesh And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Amar Nath Bhargava,Dr. Vishnu Pandey,Prashant Shukla,Rajendra Prasad Tiwari,Smt Alpana Tiwari,Vinay Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- Anurag Dubey,G.A.,Rajeev Sharma Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J. 1. Heard Sri R.P. Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Shashidhar Pandey, learned AGA for the State respondents, Sri Rajeev Sharma, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and perused the record. 2. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of entire proceedings of Case No.653 of 2016, arising out of Case Crime No.654 of 2014, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, P.S. Bhogaon, District Mainpuri, pending in the Court of ACJM-I, District Mainpuri. 3. Facts which emerge from the record are that one Gulab Singh, father of the applicant no.1 had filed a Suit being Original Suit No.887 of 2003 against opposite party no.2 for permanent injunction claiming his rights on the land in question, which was dismissed by the Court below vide order dated 28.04.2009, against which the said Gulab Singh had filed an appeal being Civil Appeal No.18 of 2009, which too was dismissed vide order dated 21.02.2014, thereafter, Gulab Singh had sold the said land to applicant no.1 (his own daughter), aggrieved by the said illegal sale, opposite party no.2 lodged an FIR on 25.12.2014 in which after investigation charge sheet has been filed on 07.07.2015 and the applicants have been summoned, which has been assailed by means of this application. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the sale-deed has been executed in favour of applicant no.1 by her father. He further submits that the land in question belong to Gulab Singh and he was having rights to sell the said land. He submits that the entire proceeding initiated by O.P. no.2 is nothing but an abuse of process of law. 5. Per contra, Sri Shashidhar Pandey, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that earlier Gulab Singh had filed a suit with the sole intention to grab the property of opposite party no.2, which was dismissed, Thereafter, an appeal was filed, which too was dismissed and when Gulab Singh failed in his efforts to grab the land, he has sold the land to applicant no.1, his own daughter. He further submitted that the court below has rightly summoned the applicants and no interference is required by this Court in the impugned order as well as the on going proceedings. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. It is not in dispute that the father of applicant no.1 had filed a suit against opposite party no.2 claiming certain land to be his own land but the same was rejected, against which an appeal was filed, which was also rejected and that order has attained finality. After not being able to prove that the land belongs to him, the father of applicant no.1 had sold the said land to his own daughter i.e. applicant no.1. The sale-deed was executed with the sole intention to usurp the land. 8. From the perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants. The summoning order has been issued after looking into the complaint and adducing evidence. The arguments raised by learned counsel for the applicants are all disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court. 9. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1918, R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192, and lastly, Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 has held that only those cases in which no prima facie case is made out can be considered in an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 10. The instant application does not fall under the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgments mentioned above, and followed in a number of matters. Moreover, the facts as alleged cannot be said that, prima facie, no offence is made out against the applicants. It is only after the evidence and trial, it can be seen as to whether the offence, as alleged, has been committed or not. 11. Hence, the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be entertained and is, accordingly, dismissed. 12. However, it is open for the applicants to take all its defence in the trial as to whether there is any criminality or not. Order Date :- 27.5.2025/S.P. Digitally signed by :- SANJAY PURI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad