HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 31959 of 2026 Court No. - 79 HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. This matter is being taken up in the date fixed category. Heard Mr. Mohd. Raghib Ali, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Hasan Parvez, learned counsel for applicants and Mr. Shiv Shanker Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as learned AGA for State. 2. Present application has been preferred with the prayer to quash the charge-sheet dated 22.01.2026 and cognizance/summoning order dated 05.05.2026 along with entire criminal proceedings of Case No.28695 of 2026, arising out of Case Crime no.245 of 2025, under Sections 318(4), 115(2), 351(2), 352, 324(4) BNS, P.S. Mainather, District- Moradabad, pending before learned court of Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Moradabad. 3. Learned counsel for applicants argued that applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case by opposite party no.2 only to harass them, since no offence as alleged has ever been committed by them. It has also been argued by learned counsel for applicants that in respect of dispute which has been narrated in the FIR, Original Suit No.243 of 2026 has already been filed before learned court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Moradabad, which is still pending to be adjudicated and as such lodging the instant FIR to implicate the applicants into unwarranted criminal litigation for the grievance in respect of civil dispute is abuse of the process of law. Learned counsel for applicants further submitted that only to make pressure and harass the applicants, opposite party no.2 implicated them in the present criminal proceedings by way of giving criminal colour to the civil dispute. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Hasan Parvej, Hasan Sardar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Kuldeep Tripathi, Shiv Shanker Mishra Rizwan And 3 Others .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) Learned counsel for applicants next submitted that there is hardly any evidence against applicants to corroborate them with the alleged incident. It has also been argued by learned counsel for applicants that without conducting fair investigation, the concerned Investigating Officer submitted chargesheet against applicants whereupon without applying its judicial mind, learned court concerned took cognizance of offence over the said chargesheet which is abuse of process of law and as such, same may be quashed. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2 as well as learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer sought through the instant application and rebutted the stands taken up by learned counsel for applicant by way of submitting that the contentions, which are sought to be raised on behalf of applicant, would relate to disputed questions of fact, and would involve appreciation of evidence. It is also submitted that at the time of taking cognizance, only a prima facie case is to be seen and the court concerned is not expected to hold a mini trial, but at the same, it has not been disputed that a civil suit for the dispute narrated in the FIR, has already been pending. 5. After having the rival contentions raised by learned counsel for parties and perusal of entire material available on record, it is crystal clear that the allegations which have been levelled against applicants, are related to certain piece of land from where a khadinja has been constructed, over which some dispute has been arisen between the parties and for the same dispute a civil suit has been filed, which is already pending between the parties, meaning thereby, dispute between parties is of civil in nature which has been given colour of criminality. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of A.M. Mohan Vs. State Represented by SHO and another, [2024 SCC OnLine SC 339] has held that there is a growing tendency to convert purely civil dispute into criminal cases. The observations made by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P. [(2000) 2 SCC 636] are also relevant which are as under:- "8. It is to be seen if a matter, which is essentially of a civil nature, has been given a cloak of criminal offence. Criminal proceedings are not a short cut of other remedies available in law. Before issuing process a criminal court has to exercise a great deal of caution. For the accused it is a serious matter. This Court has laid certain principles on the basis of which the High Court is to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of NA528 No. 31959 of 2026 2 the Code. Jurisdiction under this section has to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice." 6. It would be appropriate to mention following paragraph of a judgment passed by Supreme Court in Naresh Kumar and another vs. The State of Karnataka and another, [2024 INSC 196], that in similar circumstances inherent power can be exercised: "6. In the case of Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand (2013) 11 SCC 673, this Court recognized that although the inherent powers of a High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be exercised sparingly, yet the High Court must not hesitate in quashing such criminal proceedings which are essentially of a civil nature. This is what was held: "12. While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code the High Court has to be cautious. This power is to be used sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of facts alleged therein. Whether essential ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High Court. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence. In such a situation, if a civil remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted as has happened in this case, the High Court should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of the court." 7. The aforementioned legal position has also been considered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Kamlesh Singh vs. State of U.P. and others [(2024) 6 ILRA 15]. 8. The present case is a fit case where in exercise of inherent power under Section 528 BNSS, the impugned charge-sheet along with cognizance/summoning order and entire proceedings of the present case can be quashed, since there is civil suit pending between the parties, in respect of alleged dispute narrated in the FIR and as such the same manifests that the opposite party no.2 himself considers the dispute being predominantly of civil in nature which could not be given a criminal angle, only to harass applicants. NA528 No. 31959 of 2026 3 9. In view thereof, the charge-sheet dated 22.01.2026 and cognizance/summoning order dated 05.05.2026 along with entire criminal proceedings of Case No.28695 of 2026, arising out of Case Crime no.245 of 2025, under Sections 318(4), 115(2), 351(2), 352, 324(4) BNS, P.S. Mainather, District- Moradabad, pending before learned court of Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Moradabad, are hereby quashed. 10. Accordingly, the present application stands allowed. September 29, 2026 Saif NA528 No. 31959 of 2026 4 (Saurabh Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad