HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 34820 of 2025 Court No. - 48 HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and the learned AGA for the State-respondent. 2. This instant application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed seeking quashing of the charge sheet dated 22.03.2025, cognizance order dated 23.04.2025 as well as entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1054 of 2025 (State Vs. Prem Lata and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 220 of 2025, under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 351(3) B.N.S., P.S. Kwarsi, District Aligarh. 3. Submission is that prior to the impugned proceedings, the applicant no. 1 lodged a first information report against husband of the opposite party no. 2 on 27.07.2024 under Sections 333, 76 B.N.S. in which proceeding, charge sheet was submitted on 16.10.2024 and maliciously after ten days from the said date, the opposite party no. 2 moved application before the police authorities on 25.10.2024 to register first information report against the applicants. It is, therefore, contended that the impugned FIR has been lodged as a counterblast to the proceedings lodged by the applicants. 4. As regards the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR, submission is that only a sum of Rs. 80,000/- was transferred in the bank account of the applicant no. 1, however, the same related to sale/purchase of milk as the applicants are engaged in dairy business. 5. Learned AGA submits that serious allegations of receiving sums of money were levelled in the FIR and the applicants have not offered any cogent Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Akhilesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Prem Lata and 4 others .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and another .....Opposite Party(s) explanation as to for what purposes the amount was received. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the Court finds that payment of huge sums, time and again, has been alleged in the FIR and as far as sum of Rs.80,000/- is concerned, the same was transferred in the bank account. As regards other sums, nothing has been stated in the affidavit nor can this Court, at this stage, form a conclusive opinion that even a sum of Rs.80,000/- was related to payment qua purchase of milk from the applicants. 7. As as far as the submission of counterblast is concerned, the previous FIR lodged by the applicants has no direct link with the present proceedings which are based upon money transactions. 8. It is well settled that unless cognizance is barred by any law or malicious prosecution is well established on record so as to form a conclusive opinion that the proceedings amount to abuse of the process of law, the Court, in exercise of inherent powers either under Section 482 CrPC or 528 BNSS, cannot adjudge the controversy at pre-trial stages. 9. In view of the record of proceedings, this Court does not find any error either in submission of charge sheet or in taking cognizance in the matter. However, the applicants are at liberty to avail other remedies available to them either in CrPC or BNSS, as the case may be. 10. The application is, accordingly, rejected with liberty to the applicants to avail other remedies in accordance with law. September 11, 2025 AKShukla/- NA528 No. 34820 of 2025 2 (Kshitij Shailendra,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANIL KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad