Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:70044 Court No. - 52 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 5926 of 2025 Applicant :- Manisha Jain And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mahesh Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- Abhishek Srivastava,G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. This application U/S 528 BNSS has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash the summoning order dated 05.08.2024 passed in Complaint Case No.1209 of 2023, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 323, 504 I.P.C., Police Station Shivpur, District Varanasi, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.7, Varanasi. 3. Brief facts of the case are that a complaint has been filed by opposite party no.2 against the applicants with the allegations that Manisha Jain and her husband Anand Kumar Jain with the help and assistance of one Suresh Kumar Patel by means of forgery and fraudulent documents under conspiracy got the sale deed executed of the land in question, which belongs to mother and grand-mother of opposite party no.2. It is further alleged that on 20.11.2022 at about 5 O'clock in the evening the applicants tried to forcefully encroach the said land of Araji No.59, area 0.0990 hectare situated at Mauja Ashapur, Pargana Athagava, Tehsil Pindara, District Varanasi. The opposite party no.2 raised objection, the applicants abused him and stated that they have purchased the said land from his mother and grand-mother in the year 2011 and assaulted him with the intention to kill him. After recording the statements of opposite party no.2 and other witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. the applicants have been summoned by the concerned Magistrate. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the complaint has been filed against the applicants with false and frivolous allegations. He further submits that earlier on 18.04.2023 an F.I.R. was lodged by applicant no.2 against opposite party no.2 and his father regarding the property in question and the present complaint has been filed against the applicants in order to exert pressure upon them. He submits that from the statement of Registrar Deepak Jaiswal, the sale deed executed by Karamdei in favour of the applicants is found to be correct. He further submits that Karamdei expired in the year 2023 whereas the sale deed was executed by her in the year 2014. The inheritance records also show that Karamdei was alive in the year 2014. There is nothing on record to show that any injury has been sustained by opposite party no.2 or any other. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicants to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against them. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicants have also been touched upon at length. 5. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State submit that there is no illegality in the summoning order as from the version of the complaint, statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. offence is made out against the applicants. As regards the contention of learned counsel for the applicants that the present case has been lodged as a counter blast to the F.I.R. lodged by applicant no.2 against opposite party no.2 and his father, has no legs to stand as the incident dated 20.11.2022 is also admitted by the applicants as they have lodged the F.I.R. with nearly same set of allegations and have admitted the dispute with regard to land in question. They submit that the F.I.R. was lodged by the applicant no.2 after coming to know that opposite party no.2 has filed a suit for cancellation of alleged sale deed. It is next submitted that the date of death of husband of Karamdei has not been mentioned, therefore, it can be proved whether the sale deed executed by Karamdei in favour of the the applicant is correct or not and how karamdei inherited the property. All the submissions made by the counsel for the applicants, relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 528 BNSS. 6. This Court is not unmindful of the following judgements of the Apex Court: (i) R.P. Kapur Versus State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866; (ii) State of Haryana & Ors. Versus Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors.1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335; (iii) State of Bihar & Anr. Versus P.P. Sharma & Anr. 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 222; (iv) Zandu Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd. & Ors. Versus Mohammad Shariful Haque & Anr. 2005 (1) SCC 122; (v) M. N. Ojha Vs. Alok Kumar Srivastava 2009 (9) SCC 682; (vi) Mohd. Allauddin Khan Vs. The State of Bihar & Others (2019 ) Supreme (SC) 454; (vii) Nallapareddy Sridhar Reddy Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (2020) Supreme (SC) 45; (viii) Rajeev Kaurav Vs. Balasahab & Others (2020 ) Supreme (SC) 143, and (ix) M/s Neeharika, Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. The State of Maharashtra (2021) SCC OnLine SC 315. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the materials available on record, this Court is of the opinion, that learned counsel for the applicants could not point out any legal infirmity in the impugned summoning order dated 05.08.2024 which may warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of powers conferred under 528 BNSS jurisdiction. Therefore, prayer in respect of applicants is refused and the application u/s 528 BNSS is hereby dismissed. 8. The instant application is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 2.5.2025 Abhishek Singh Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad