HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 26133 of 2025 Court No. - 82 HON'BLE PADAM NARAIN MISHRA, J. 1. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Chaudhary, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ashutosh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel or the opposite party no.2 as well as learned AGA for the State. 2. The present application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed seeking quashing the entire proceeding in Criminal Case No. 6905 of 2022, arising out of Case Crime No. 402 of 2021 under Sections 420, 386, 342, 323, 504, 506 and 452 of IPC, police Station Kotwali, District Mau as well as cognizance /summoning order dated 06.12.2022, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mau. 3. Brief facts of the present case is that an FIR was lodged on 06.10.2021 for the incident allegedly took place on 05.10.2021 for the offences punishable under sections 420, 386, 342, 323, 504, 506 and 452 of IPC. The applicants and other persons namely Vijay Singh, Vishal Singh, Poras Singh Baghel and Raghvendra Singh were carried the business after putting in account of son of complainant and when this fact came into knowledge of complainant, he advised his son to left the friendship with them and also return the money to them and also stopped to meet with them. After some days allegedly Vijay Singh and his friends again meet with son of complainant and said that they are starting the business from the money of Vijay Singh and other so the black money became white. When the complainant and his son refuse to perform the business they threatened to face dire consequences. On 05.10.2021 they entered in the house of complainant and by abusing them forcefully obtain the signature of his son on blank stamp paper. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anil Kumar Chaudhary Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Ashutosh Kumar Pandey, G.A. Raghvendra Singh And 3 Others .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 4. The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submitted that the son of the complainant namely Sagar Tanwani took money for carrying business from Vijay Singh and when same was demanded by the Vijay Singh and his companion. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the present FIR has been lodged with a malafide intention to exert pressure upon the applicants in relation to a monetary dispute and to avoid repayment of the money borrowed. It is further submitted that a compromise has been entered into between the parties and an affidavit dated 07.10.2021 has been brought on record as Annexure No.1of Rejoinder Affidavit, which clearly indicates the existence of the civil dispute regarding the money between the parties. He further submitted that the statement of the independent witness recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. disclose that only a minor altercation took place and no specific role or overt act has been assigned to the applicants. He further submitted that the alleged injuries are simple in nature and the medical examination was conducted on 06.10.2021, i.e., one day after the alleged incident at the instance of the informant, which creates doubt about the prosecution story. He lastly submitted that the dispute between the parties is regarding the repayment of the money and the opposite party no.2 has given criminal colour to a purely civil dispute by the institution of the present criminal proceeding. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for Opposite Party No. 2 submits that the allegations are serious in nature and three persons sustained injuries in the incident, which is supported by medical evidence. It is further submitted that the discharge application of the applicants has already been rejected and charges have been framed. Therefore, at this stage, the present application is not maintainable and the matter is required to be adjudicated during trial. He placed reliance upon the judgment passed in the case of Ravindra Pratap Sahi @Pappu Sahi vs. State of UP. & Others and Ram Shanker Singh vs. State of U.P. & Others. 6. From the perusal of the record, it appears that an affidavit dated 07.10.2021 has been brought on record which is available as the Annexure No.1 of the Rejoinder Affidavit in which Opposite Party No. 2 clearly stated that the he has returned all the money which was paid to his son by the applicants. The statement of the opposite party no. 2 itself indicates that there is a dispute regarding payment exist between the parties. Furthermore, NA528 No. 26133 of 2025 2 the alleged incident is stated to have occurred on 05.10.2021, whereas the affidavit has been executed merely after two days. This circumstance strongly suggests that the dispute between the parties is rooted in a monetary/commercial transaction. On the perusal of the statement of the independent witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., it is evident that only some minor altercation took place, that does not support the prosecution version of serious allegations of forcible execution of documents. So far as the injuries are concerned, though medical reports indicate that three persons sustained injuries but the same are stated to be simple in nature. Moreover, the medical examination has been conducted on 06.10.2021, i.e., one day after the alleged incident, at the behest of the informant. As far as the plea of opposite party i.e. the discharge application has been rejected, is concerned, it is necessary to refer the decision of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shueb Mahmood Kidwai @ Bobby vs State of U.P. in which the division bench has made the following observation:- "No such general proposition of law can be laid down ousting the jurisdiction of this Court from exercising inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. merely because the charge had been framed under Section 228 or because of Section 232 Cr.P.C. Each case is to be dealt with on its own facts based on the parameters of Section 482 Cr.P.C." 7. In view of above discussion, the present application is hereby allowed. 8. The entire proceeding of Criminal Case No. 6905 of 2022, arising out of Case Crime No. 402 of 2021 under Sections 420, 386, 342, 323, 504, 506 and 452 of IPC, police Station Kotwali, District Mau as well as cognizance /summoning order dated 06.12.2022, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mau is hereby quashed. February 24, 2026 Akram NA528 No. 26133 of 2025 3 (Padam Narain Mishra,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD AKRAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad