Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:138059 Court No. - 71 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 20423 of 2025 Applicant :- Ramesh Chand Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mahendra Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- Ajay Kumar Pandey,G.A. Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J. 1. Counter affidavit filed by learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, in Court today, is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. This application under Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as BNSS) has been preferred against the notice dated 21.04.2025 issued by Executive Magistrate / Deputy Commissioner, City Zone, Commissionerate, Agra in Case No. 05 of 2025 State Vs. Smt. Saru Munjal (first party) and Ramesh Chand (second party), under Section - 164 (1) BNSS, Police Station - Nai Ki Mandi Commissionrated-Agra, Disrict - Agra. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that impugned order / notice is against facts and law and thus, liable to be quashed. It was submitted that regarding disputed property the applicant has filed a civil suit way-back in the year 2008, wherein an order of injunction was passed and the defendant was restrained from interfering in peaceful possession of applicant. It was submitted that as the dispute regarding disputed property is subjudice before the Civil court thus, learned Executive Magistrate has no power or jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Section - 164 BNSS. Referring to these facts, it was submitted that impugned order / notice is liable to be quashed. 5. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has opposed the application and submitted that in fact in the above referred civil suit the applicant has obtained ex- parte injunction against one Gulam Haidar @ Achche Miyan and opposite party no.2 was not made party in the said civil suit however, later on the opposite party no.2 was impleaded as party. It is further submitted that impugned order / notice is merely a show cause notice, wherein it has been mentioned that applicant has to appear before the Executive Magistrate to show cause why the necessary order must not be passed regarding possession of the disputed property. 6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 7. It appears from record that on the basis of police report to the effect that there was dispute and apprehension of breach of peace on account of possession over the disputed property, learned Executive Magistrate has issued a notice to the applicant as well as to the opposite party no.2 vide impugned order dated 21.04.2025. It is merely a show cause notice, wherein it has been mentioned that both the parties have to appear before the Executive Magistrate and to produce their statements regarding possession of the disputed property. It is not clear whether the factum of pendency of civil suit has been brought into the notice of Executive Magistrate or not. Thus, the applicant may reply in pursuance to the said notice and submit his statement therein. In view of attending facts and circumstances, no case for interference in the impugned show cause notice is made out. 8. However, it is directed that in case applicant appears and submits his reply / statement before the learned Executive Magistrate within a period of three weeks from today in pursuance to the impugned notice, the same shall be considered and decided by the Executive Magistrate concerned expeditiously in accordance with law. 9. The application under Section 528 BNSS is disposed of in above terms. Order Date :- 13.8.2025 S Rawat Digitally signed by :- SHOBHIT RAWAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad