HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 35527 of 2025 Court No. - 89 HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J. 1. Heard Shri Umang Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Uma Shankar Mishra, learned AGA for the State. 2. The present application u/s 528 of BNSS has been filed with prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Case No. 519 of 2024 (Vijay Bahadur Singh Vs. Kapil Agrawal and others), arising out of Case Crime No.104 of 2025, under Sections 420, 447, 506 of IPC, P.S. Mahuakheda, District Aligarh as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 26.05.2025, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the vide order impugned, the learned Magistrate has rejected the protest petition of the applicant. It is further contended that the applicant has lodged a first information report under Sections 420, 447, 506 IPC against opposite party no.2. It is also contended that the applicant and opposite party no.2 are co- sharer and the opposite party no.2 executed sale deed in excess of his share fraudulently. It is further contended that the Investigating Officer did not conduct proper and fair investigation and submitted final report. Against the said final report, protest petition was filed by the applicant, which was rejected by the learned Magistrate without appreciating the material available on record. 4. On the other hand, learned AGA refers to page 208 of the memo of application and submits that the Investigating Officer has conducted thorough investigation and has come to the conclusion that no offence under Sections 420, 447, 506 IPC is made out. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Umang Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Vijay Bahadur Singh .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) 5. In reply, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Investigating Officer has recorded his finding that one of the sale deed was executed on the basis of power of attorney by the wife of opposite party no.2, whereas the fact is that none of the sale deed has been executed on the basis of the power of attorney rather the sale deed that has been executed individually. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has referred Annexure Nos.5 to 8 of the memo of application. The applicant has lodged a first information report under Sections 420, 447, 506 IPC against opposite party no.2 alleging therein that the opposite party no.2, who is co-sharer of the applicant executed sale deed in excess of his share fraudulently. The Investigating Officer after investigation submitted final report. Against the said final report, protest petition was filed by the applicant, learned Magistrate by detailed order has rejected the protest petition vide order impugned and has held that the protest petition filed by the applicant has no sufficient ground to stand. 7. On perusal of the entire material available on record, there is no abuse of the process of the Court vide order impugned. 8. In view of the above, the application U/s 528 BNSS lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly, the application U/s 528 BNSS is dismissed. September 16, 2025 RKM NA528 No. 35527 of 2025 2 (Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad