Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:32702 Court No. - 74 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 6367 of 2025 Applicant :- Sanjay Vashishth @ Sanjay Sharma And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ramanuj Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri Ramanuj Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Moti Lal, learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed by the applicants to quash the entire proceedings of Case No. 14321 of 2023 (State Vs. Sanjay Vashith @ Sanjay Sharma and others), arising out of case crime no.66 of 2023, under Sections 354-Kha, 452, 323, 504, 506, 384 of IPC, Police Station- Dhampur, District Bijnor, pending before the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bijnor. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants has argued that the opposite party no. 2 has lodged the first information report against the applicants on 06.03.02023, being FIR No. 0066 of 2023 under Sections 354-Kha, 452, 323, 504, 506, 384 of IPC relatable to the commission of the offences on 23.01.2023 while resorting to the proceedings under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. with an allegation that on 23.01.2023 at about 10.30 hours, when the wife of the opposite party no. 2 who is the owner of a adjacent plot was doing some work then the applicants barged and demanded a ten feet road on being resisted, they, with the help of hard and blunt objects, inflicted injuries, pursuant whereto clothes were also torn. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that as a matter of fact, it is nothing but a civil dispute which has been given a criminal colour while inviting attention towards the order dated 30.08.2024 which confirms an injunction order dated 05.10.2015 in Misc. Civil Appeal No.36 of 2019 in favour of the applicants. He also submits that there happens to be another FIR dated 25.08.2023 by the applicant no. 1 against one Rajat and Akash. Submission is that a civil dispute is being sought to be given a criminal colour. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants has sought to refer to the fact that even in the month of February, 2023, there happened to be a compromise between the parties, however, thereafter now in order to settle score, proceedings under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. has been sought to be initiated. He seeks to rely upon the decision in the case of Kamlesh Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others; 2024 9 ADJ 302, para 14 and 15 so as to further contend that once a civil dispute is being given a criminal colour then the Court may invoke jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 5. Learned AGA on the other hand has argued that the narration of the allegations coupled with the statement of under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as well as the statement of doctor which is at page 79 shows that injuries have been sustained and further incident has occurred. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records. 7. The basic question which falls for consideration is as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the applicants can insist that this Court should interfere and come to its rescue. To test the said aspect, what is required to be seen is the narration of the allegations contained in the first information report coupled with the depositions under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., in case, they corroborate with each other then due weightage is to be given to the allegations contained in the first information report. 8. Apparently, the Court finds that on 23.01.2023, there happens to be an incident pursuant whereto the wife of the first informant sustained injuries and the statement of the doctor which is at page 79 also shows that the injuries sought to be sustained were through hard and blunt objects, now a question arises whether there is delay in filing of the FIR, however, as per the argument sought to be advanced in the month of February, there was a compromise and thereafter the first information report stood lodged, itself shows that some incident has happened that is why process for compromise was undertaken and further the issue can also be seen from another point of angle that proceedings under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. also stood triggered. So far as the civil dispute pending is concerned, the injunction order is of the year 2015 and it has been confirmed in the year 2019, however, the incident is stated to have been of the year 2023. Thus the applicants may have a case that in order to throttle out from the obligations so set forth to the parties as per the injunction order but it is a matter of defence which is to be seen at the time of the trial. 9. Thus, interference is declined and the application is consigned to record. 10. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicants submits that suitable direction be issued in light of the judgment in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another; decided on 07.10.2021 in S.L.P. No.5191 of 2021 with relation to enlargement on bail. 11. In the opinion of the Court, once a bail application is preferred then the same shall be considered with most expeditions strictly as per the law of the land without any delay. 12. The document provided to the case diary is taken on record and marked as Appendix-A & B. Order Date :- 6.3.2025 A. Prajapati Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad