HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 32014 of 2025 Court No. - 84 HON'BLE SANJIV KUMAR, J. 1. Heard Shri Pradeep Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Murtaza Ali, learned State Law Officer, on behalf of the State and learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and perused the material on record. 2. This Application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed on behalf of applicant to quash the entire proceeding of Case No. 35712 of 2025 (State Vs. Ramroop Upadhyay), arising out of Case Crime No.630 of 2024, under Sections- 352, 351(3), 329(3) B.N.S., Police Station- Gorakhnath, District- Gorakhpur and charge-sheet dated 25.12.2024 as well as cognizance/ summoning order dated 16.05.2025, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Gorakhpur. 3. Brief facts giving rise to the present application are that opposite party no.2- Priyanka Tiwari lodged an FIR against the applicant on 13.11.2024 at about 11:00 that her father (the applicant) broke open the lock of the house, by replacing it with his own to seal the house. When she asked him to open the door, he responded by unleashing vile verbal abuse and menacing threats. 4. Upon this information an FIR was lodged and after investigation charge- sheet under Sections- 352, 351(3) and 329 (3) B.N.S. has been filed before the competent court which has taken cognizance of the offence and summoned the applicant. 5. Feeling aggrieved, this application has been filed on the ground that the first informant/ opposite party no.2 is the daughter of the applicant and her Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Pradeep Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Madhukar Bharti, Pawan Kumar, Prince Kumar Srivastava Ramroop Upadhyay .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) marriage was solemnized with Arman Tiwari, but she has forcefully occupied the house of the applicant and her brother. The above said house has been mutated in the name of Kishan Kant Upadhyay, brother of first informant. It is stated that the alleged incident is false and concocted and there is no independent witness of the incident and also there is no specific role assigned to the applicant. It is also stated that the FIR has been lodged by the first informant/ opposite party no.2 to usurp the house of the applicant. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 has stated that the applicant has committed the offence and charge-sheet has been filed in the competent court. It is also stated that even if civil remedy is available to a person, then it does not bar the criminal prosecution if on the given facts criminal offence is made out. 7. In support of this argument, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has relied upon a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme court in (Kathyayini Vs. Siddharth P.S. Reddy and Others) 2025 SCC Online SC 1428 arising out of SLP (Criminal) No.1105 of 2024, decided on 14.07.2025, wherein the Supreme Court has held that no bar exists against prosecution of a person if the act is punishable under the criminal law against the parties to the civil suit. The relevant extract of the judgment is quoted hereinbelow:- "19. We now come to the issue of bar against prosecution during the pendency of a civil suit. We hereby hold that no such bar exists against prosecution if the offences punishable under criminal law are made out against the parties to the civil suit. Learned senior counsel Dr. Menaka Guruswamy has rightly placed the relevant judicial precedents to support the above submission. In the case of K. Jagadish v. Udaya Kumar G.S. and another (2020) 14 SCC 552, this Court has reviewed its precedents which clarify the position. The relevant paragraph from the above judgment is extracted below: "8. It is thus well settled that in certain cases the very same set of facts may give rise to remedies in civil as well as in criminal proceedings and even if a civil remedy is availed by a party, he is not precluded from setting in motion the proceedings in criminal law." 20. In Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar and Another (1985) 2 SCC 370, this Court summed up the distinction between the two remedies as under: "21. … There are a large number of cases where criminal law and civil law can run side by side. The two remedies are not mutually exclusive but clearly coextensive and NA528 No. 32014 of 2025 2 essentially differ in their content and consequence. The object of the criminal law is to punish an offender who commits an offence against a person, property or the State for which the accused, on proof of the offence, is deprived of his liberty and in some cases even his life. This does not, however, affect the civil remedies at all for suing the wrongdoer in cases like arson, accidents, etc. It is an anathema to suppose that when a civil remedy is available, a criminal prosecution is completely barred. The two types of actions are quite different in content, scope and import. It is not at all intelligible to us to take the stand that if the husband dishonestly misappropriates the stridhan property of his wife, though kept in his custody, that would bar prosecution under Section 406 IPC or render the ingredients of Section 405 IPC nugatory or abortive. To say that because the stridhan of a married woman is kept in the custody of her husband, no action against him can be taken as no offence is committed is to override and distort the real intent of the law." 21. The aforesaid view was reiterated in Kamaladevi Agarwal v. State of W.B. and Others (2002) 1 SCC 555," 17. In view of the preponderance of authorities to the contrary, we are satisfied that the High Court was not justified in quashing the proceedings initiated by the appellant against the respondents. We are also not impressed by the argument that as the civil suit was pending in the High Court, the Magistrate was not justified to proceed with the criminal case either in law or on the basis of propriety. Criminal cases have to be proceeded with in accordance with the procedure as prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure and the pendency of a civil action in a different court even though higher in status and authority, cannot be made a basis for quashing of the proceedings." 8. Learned A.G.A has also defended the proceedings pending against the applicant. 9. Recently, in Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani vs. State of U.P., 2025 SCC Online 947 the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while deciding the appeal arising from an order passed by Allahabad High Court by which the High Court had dismissed the appellant's petition seeking quashing of summoning order, laid down certain steps which must be followed to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing, raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC (Now Section 528 BNSS): (1) Whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable, i.e., the materials is of sterling and impeccable quality? (2) Whether the material relied upon by the accused, would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused, i.e., the material is sufficient to NA528 No. 32014 of 2025 3 reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint, i.e., the material is such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false. (3) Whether the material relied upon by the accused, has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such, that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant? (4) Whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice? 10. In the backdrop of the above legal position, while exercising power under Section 528 BNSS, this Court can also see the unrefuted material of the applicant to judge whether criminal proceeding instituted by opposite party no.2 is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 11. It is also well settled that summoning of any person as an accused on the basis of a frivolous or fictitious complaint is something very serious, as this would tarnish the image of the person against whom false, frivolous, or fictitious allegations are levelled. It is the duty of the Court, in such cases where the accused seeks quashing of an FIR or proceedings on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or fictitious or instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance to delineate such abuse of the process of law, and exercise its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. ( Section 528 BNSS). 12. In view of the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties as well as the above legal position and the material on record, it is clear that the opposite party no.2/ first informant is a married daughter of applicant Ramroop Upadhyay. A perusal of FIR, prima facie, shows that the main grievance of the applicant appears to be that of her right to reside in the above said house. During the course of argument, it has not been disputed on behalf of learned counsel for opposite party no.2 that she is married and the disputed house is not owned by her. Therefore, the dispute between the parties is essentially civil in nature, and it appears that the opposite party no.2 has given criminal colour to it, to exert pressure upon the applicant to settle her personal vendetta. Vindication of majesty of justice and maintenance of law and order in the society are the prime objects of criminal justice but it would not be the means to wreak personal vengeance. In view NA528 No. 32014 of 2025 4 of the above, the continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of process of law. 13. In view of the above, the present application, under Section 528 BNSS, is allowed and the entire proceedings of Case No. 35712 of 2025 (State Vs. Ramroop Upadhyay), arising out of Case Crime No.630 of 2024, under Sections- 352, 351(3), 329(3) B.N.S., Police Station- Gorakhnath, District- Gorakhpur and charge-sheet dated 25.12.2024 as well as cognizance/ summoning order dated 16.05.2025, are hereby, quashed. February 20, 2026 AdityaG NA528 No. 32014 of 2025 5 (Sanjiv Kumar,J.) Digitally signed by :- ADITYA GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- ADITYA GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad