HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 14665 of 2026 Court No. - 82 HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J. 1. Heard Sri Anil Tiwari learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Vinay Bhushan Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed praying for quashing non-bailable-warrant order dated 27.03.2026 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur in Complaint Case No. 3556 of 2008 (Manjeet Singh Vs. Iqbal Singh) under Sections 420, 467, 468 I.P.C., Police Station Bilaspur, District Rampur as well as to quash the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case and also the summoning order dated 19.09.2009 passed in the aforesaid case. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants has contended that the applicants are practicing Advocates of District Rampur, who had filed a partition suit under Section 176 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. on behalf of plaintiffs Iqbal Singh and others being Original Suit No. 66 of 2006-07 in which, Sri Manjeet Singh/opposite party no.2 was arrayed as defendant no.3 and that Manjeet Singh filed a complaint against the applicants and four others, wherein the applicants were arrayed as accused no.5 and 6 respectively, wherein it has been alleged that the applicants have filed a fake affidavit and vakalatnama on behalf of one of the plaintiff namely Narinder Singh, who had died prior to institution of the suit. He further submits that on the aforesaid complaint, the applicants were summoned vide order dated 19.02.2009, which was challenged by the applicants by way of filing Criminal Misc. (482) Application No. 9251 of 2009 in which the further proceedings were stayed. learned counsel further argued that the aforesaid suit was withdrawn with a permission to file a fresh vide order dated 23.11.2009. Learned counsel next argued that the aforesaid application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., was pending before this Court and it appears that the same was listed on 22.08.2017 and the same was dismissed for want of prosecution. Learned counsel further argued that the applicants were not aware of dismissing of the earlier 482 Cr.P.C. application and it Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Vinay Bhushan Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Nabboo Ali Ansari And Another .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) only came to their knowledge when bailable warrants were issued against and as soon as the applicants could approach the concerned authority, in the meantime non-bailable-warrants have been issued against the applicants. Learned counsel further argued that at the best proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C., ought to have been initiated against the applicants instead of filing a complaint and therefore the proceedings are nothing but misuse of the process of law. It is thus contended that the entire proceedings are liable to be quashed by this Court. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the applicants and perused the materials brought on record, it does not appear to be a fit case praying for quashing of impugned order as well as proceedings. The prayer praying for quashing of same is hereby refused, at this stage as the argument raised by learned counsel for the applicants involves factual disputes and appraisal of evidence. 5. However, looking at the nature of offence alleged and attending facts and circumstances of the case, as have been brought on record, it is directed that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within three weeks from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in accordance with law. 6. For a period of three weeks from today, the non-bailable warrant issued against the applicants shall be kept in abeyance. 7. The present application stands disposed of. April 20, 2026 S.Ali NA528 No. 14665 of 2026 2 (Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHAUKAT ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad