HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 47650 of 2025 Court No. - 75 HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Heard Mr. Tarun Jha, learned counsel for applicants and learned AGA for the State. 2. Although notice which was issued earlier, has already been served upon opposite party no.2, in spite of that, no one appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2 even in the revised call. It is the legal and moral obligation of any person to appear before the Court for contesting the matter against whom notice was issued and thereafter served. 3. Present application has been preferred with the prayer to quash cognizance/summoning order dated 23.11.2020 along with entire criminal proceedings of Case No.2430 of 2020 (State Vs. Shailesh Dixit and others), arising out of Case Crime no. 692 of 2019, under Sections 147, 452, 323, 504, 427 IPC, P.S.- Farrukhabad Kotwali, District Farrukhabad, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhabad. 4. Learned counsel for applicants argued that applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case by opposite party no.2 only to harass them since no offence as alleged, has ever been committed by them. It has also been argued by learned counsel for applicants that the present matter has been arisen out of a civil dispute and with regard to the same, certain civil proceedings are going on between the parties. Learned counsel for applicants has further submitted that only to make pressure and harass the applicants, opposite party no.2 implicated them in the present criminal proceedings by way of giving criminal colour to the civil dispute. Learned counsel for applicants further contended that applicant nos.3 and 4 each are having criminal history of single case wherein final report have already been submitted. Learned counsel for applicants further submitted that there is Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Tarun Jha Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Shailesh Dixit And 3 Others .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) hardly any evidence against applicants to corroborate them with the alleged incident. It has also been argued by learned counsel for applicants that without conducting fair investigation, the concerned Investigating Officer submitted chargesheet against applicants whereupon without applying its judicial mind, learned court concerned took cognizance of offence over the said chargesheet which is abuse of process of law and as such, same may be quashed. 5. Per contra, learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer sought through the instant application but did not dispute the facts the allegations which have been levelled against applicants, are related to the civil suits which are pending before learned concerned courts. 6. After having the rival contentions raised by learned counsel for parties and perusal of entire material available on record, it is crystal clear that the present matter has been arisen out of a civil dispute which has been given colour of criminality. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of A.M. Mohan Vs. State Represented by SHO and another, [2024 SCC OnLine SC 339] has held that there is a growing tendency to convert purely civil dispute into criminal cases. The observations made by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P. [(2000) 2 SCC 636] are also relevant which are as under:- "8. It is to be seen if a matter, which is essentially of a civil nature, has been given a cloak of criminal offence. Criminal proceedings are not a short cut of other remedies available in law. Before issuing process a criminal court has to exercise a great deal of caution. For the accused it is a serious matter. This Court has laid certain principles on the basis of which the High Court is to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. Jurisdiction under this section has to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice." 7. It would be appropriate to mention following paragraph of a judgment passed by Supreme Court in Naresh Kumar and another vs. The State of Karnataka and another, [2024 INSC 196], that in similar circumstances inherent power can be exercised: "6. In the case of Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand (2013) 11 SCC 673, this Court recognized that although the inherent powers of a High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be exercised sparingly, yet the High Court must not hesitate in quashing such criminal proceedings which are essentially of a civil nature. This is what was held: NA528 No. 47650 of 2025 2 "12. While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code the High Court has to be cautious. This power is to be used sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of facts alleged therein. Whether essential ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High Court. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence. In such a situation, if a civil remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted as has happened in this case, the High Court should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of the court." 8. The aforementioned legal position has also been considered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Kamlesh Singh vs. State of U.P. and others [(2024) 6 ILRA 15]. 9. This Court also notes that despite due service of notice, opposite party no.2 has chosen not to appear before this Court to contest the present proceedings. Such non-appearance, even in the revised call, clearly reflects lack of intent to prosecute or oppose the matter, therefore, in absence of any rebuttal or assistance from opposite party no.2, the averments made by the applicants remain uncontroverted. 10. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, cognizance/summoning order dated 23.11.2020 along with entire criminal proceedings of Case No.2430 of 2020 (State Vs. Shailesh Dixit and others), arising out of Case Crime no. 692 of 2019, under Sections 147, 452, 323, 504, 427 IPC, P.S.- Farrukhabad Kotwali, District Farrukhabad, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhabad, are hereby quashed. 11. Accordingly, the present application stands allowed. March 19, 2026 Vivek Kr. NA528 No. 47650 of 2025 3 (Saurabh Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad