Allahabad High Court
Gaurav And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 13 April, 2026
Author: Saurabh Srivastava
Bench: Saurabh Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:81633
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 11208 of 2026
Gaurav And Another
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Babhru Vahan Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 77
HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for applicants and learned AGA for the State.
2. Present application has been preferred with the prayer to quash the chargesheet dated 27.04.2024 and cognizance/summoning order dated 17.10.2024 along with entire criminal proceedings of Case No.10538 of 2024 (State Vs. Gaurav and others), arising out of Case Crime No.114 of 2024, under Sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC, P.S.- Mubarakpur, District Azamgarh, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Azamgarh.
3. On earlier occasion notices have been issued to opposite party No.2 and the same has been reported as served personally over the father of opposite party No.2 on 05.04.2026 at the address mentioned in the FIR against informant. When the matter has been taken up today none appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2 either in person or through counsel for defending his case. No option left but to consider the prayer as made through instant application on the basis of documents available in the records as well as arguments raised by learned counsel for the applicant, although it is moral and legal obligation upon the opposite party no.2 to put his appearance either in person or through counsel for rebutting the stand taken up by applicant through instant application for challenging entire proceeding alongwith chargesheet and summoning order in Case Crime No.114 of 2024.
4. 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 been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that civil dispute has already been pending between the parties and the instant matter has been given a criminal colour by way of lodging FIR at Case Crime No.114 of 2024, under Sections 323, 504 and 506 of IPC, Police Station Mubarakpur, District Azamgarh, wherein the applicants have been implicated. In fact there is hardly any attraction of section 323, 504 and 506 of IPC, if corroborated through the narration of the FIR.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants also submitted that at the time of medical examination only one simple injury has been mentioned by concerned doctor who examined the victim, but at the time of recording statement under Section 180 BNS, there are two injuries recorded by treating doctor, which itself is contradictory to the medical examination report as made part of the case diary. Learned counsel for the applicants while challenging the entire proceeding of Case No.10538 of 2024 (State Vs. Gaurav and others) arising out of Case Crime No.114 of 2024 also informed that there is hardly any criminal history credited against the applicants and they are the victim of false, frivolous and concocted story narrated through FIR, wherein no evidences have been collected by concerned investigating officer for implicating while preferring chargesheet against the applicants.
6. It is also argued by learned counsel for the applicants that the cognizance order has been passed by learned court concerned in most mechanical manner, without considering the contradictory facts available through medical examination report and the statements so recorded by concerned doctor and summoned the applicants while taking cognizance of offence in respect of Sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC.
7. Learned counsel for applicant has further submitted that only to make pressure and harass the applicants, opposite party no.2 implicated him in the present criminal proceedings by way of giving criminal colour to the civil dispute. Learned counsel for applicants further submitted that there is hardly any evidence against applicants to corroborate them with the alleged incident.
8. Per contra, learned A.G.A. however, vehemently opposed the prayer and rebutting the stand taken up by leaned counsel for the applicants at the same time justified the order dated 17.10.2024 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Azamgarh, but at the same time did not disputed the persisting civil dispute between the parties in the shape of Original Suit No.1436 of 1989 and the gravity of the matter where certain contradictory facts are involved.
9. After having the rival contentions raised by learned counsel for parties and in absence of any proper representation at the behest of opposite party No.2, there is no option left before the Court, but to consider the prayer so made through the instant application on the basis of material available on record as well as the arguments so made by learned counsel for the applicant. This court finds that 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 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."
10. 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."
11. 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].
12. The arguments so raised by learned counsel for the applicant is that Original Suit No.1436 of 1989 is still pending which has been submitted with questionnaire, which clearly proves that the matter is still pending to be adjudicated finally by learned civil court, District Azamgarh and the information so registered at Case Crime N0.114 of 2024, is nothing, but implication of the applicants for creating undue pressure. Whereas non-appearance of the opposite party No.2 also shows that somewhere he is not interested/able to contest the matter before this Court.
13. 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 filing of Original Suit No.1436 of 1989, 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 applicant.
14. In view thereof, entire criminal proceedings of Case No.10538 of 2024 (State Vs. Gaurav and others) arising out of Case Crime No.114 of 2024, under Sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC, P.S. Mubarakpur, District Azamgarh, pending before learned court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Azamgarh, which includes chargesheet dated 27.04.2024 and summoning order dated 17.10.2024 are hereby set-aside..
15. Accordingly, the present application stands allowed.
(Saurabh Srivastava,J.) April 13, 2026 Ashish/-