HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 25967 of 2025 Court No. - 82 HON'BLE PADAM NARAIN MISHRA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for opposite party no. 2. Perused the record. 2. The present application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed for quashing of the charge-sheet dated 18.06.2023 as well as the summoning order dated 06.05.2025 passed in Criminal Case No. 15448 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 98 of 2023, under Sections 323, 427, 506 and 354 - B IPC, Police Station Kheda, District - Aligarh. 3. Briefly stated, an FIR dated 09.04.2023 was lodged by opposite party no. 2 alleging therein that one Omprakash, elder brother of the complainant's husband, had purchased a plot measuring 100 sq. yards in the year 2002 through an agreement to sell coupled with possession and had raised construction thereon. It is alleged that the applicant Sushila Devi, being the seller, avoided execution of the sale deed. After the death of Omprakash, the property is stated to have devolved upon his legal heir Deepak, and the complainant was looking after the said property. On 24.03.2023, the complainant allegedly found the lock broken and the accused persons demolishing a portion of the construction. It is further alleged that household articles including cash of ?20,000 were taken away. A specific allegation has also been made that co-accused outraged the modesty of the complainant and tore her clothes, and extended threats. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Beerendra Pratap Singh, Indra Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s): Ansar Ahmad, G.A. Smt. Sushila Devi And 2 Others .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants had been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the entire dispute is civil in nature relating to title and possession of immovable property and has been given a criminal colour. It is further argued that the allegations are false, exaggerated and inherently improbable. It is further submitted that no independent witness supports the allegation under Section 354 IPC. He further submits that FIR is a counterblast, amounting to abuse of the process of law. It is further contended that no prima facie offence is made out against the applicants. 5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 have opposed the application and submitted that the allegations in the FIR and material collected during investigation disclose commission of cognizable offences. It is contended that at this stage, the Court is not required to examine the correctness or otherwise of the allegations and the matter requires trial. 6. Before entering into controversy at hand, it is necessary to discuss the scope of inherent power of High Court. The scope of interference under Section 528 BNSS is settled down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, R.P. Kapur vs. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866 and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, wherein it has been held that the inherent power is to be exercised sparingly and in exceptional cases. 7. Upon perusal of the FIR, statement of witnesses recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. and the material brought on record, this Court finds that specific allegations have been made against the applicants regarding trespass, damage to property, removal of articles, criminal intimidation and outraging the modesty of the complainant. The contention of the applicants that the dispute is purely civil in nature cannot be accepted at this stage, inasmuch as the allegations prima facie disclose commission of cognizable offences. It is well settled that merely because a civil dispute is involved, the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed if the ingredients of the offences are made out. The plea of false implication and exaggeration of allegations involves disputed questions of fact, which cannot be NA528 No. 25967 of 2025 2 examined in proceedings under Section 528 BNSS. 8. This Court does not find that the present case falls within any of the categories laid down in Bhajan Lal vs State of Harayana (Supra). 9. Accordingly, the application is dismissed. March 17, 2026 Akram NA528 No. 25967 of 2025 3 (Padam Narain Mishra,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD AKRAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad