Allahabad High Court
Case Details
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 28005 of 2025 Sabir And 8 Others State of U.P. and Another Versus .....Applicant(s) .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Ayyaz Khan, Vivek Kumar Shukla : G.A. Court No. - 71 HON'BLE RAJ BEER SINGH, J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Sri Pratik Kumar, Advocate has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no.2, which is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. This application under Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita ( hereinafter referred to as 'BNSS') has been filed for quashing of entire proceedings, including charge-sheet dated 06.04.2025 as well as cognizance / summoning order dated 23.06.2025, of Case No. 1762 of 2025 (State Vs. Sabir and others), arising out of Case Crime No.0030 of 2025, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC, P.S.- Masoori, District- Ghaziabad, pending in the court of A.C.J. (S.D.)- Ist / A.C.J.M., Ghaziabad. 4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are innocent and no prima-facie case is made out against them. In fact, earlier "gharauni" in favour of informant was made in the influence of Village Pradhan, who is brother of informant. Later, the "gharauni" in respect of disputed property was made in the name of applicant no.1 Sabir and on that basis he has executed a Gift-deed of the property in favour of his sons. It was submitted that dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature and no prima-facie case is made out. Referring to documents on record, it was submitted that "gharauni" in favour of applicant no.1 Sabir 2 NA528 No. 28005 of 2025 was made in accordance with law and rules. In this connection, learned counsel has referred the concerned Rules. It is further submitted that a civil suit is pending between the parties regarding the said dispute. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that no prima-facie case is made out against applicants. 5. Learned AGA and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 have opposed the application and submitted that applicant no.1 has prepared a forged "gharauni" of the property of informant and on that basis he has executed a Gift-deed in favour of his sons, whereas he has no title in respect of disputed property. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has referred statement of concerned Lekhpal, who has inter-alia stated that applicant no.1 Sabir has got prepared the "gharauni" in question on the basis of false information and on that basis a forged Gift-deed was executed. 6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 7. The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is well-settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a charge-sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases. However, where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and material on record even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, the charge-sheet may be quashed in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. In well celebrated judgement reported in AIR 1992 SC 605 State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal, Supreme Court has carved out certain guidelines, wherein FIR or proceedings may be quashed but cautioned that the power to quash FIR or proceedings should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases. In this connection, a reference may also be made to the case of R. Kalyani vs. Janak C. Mehta and Others, 2009 (1) SCC 516, Rupan Deol Bajaj vs. K.P.S. Gill (1995) SCC (Cri) 1059, Rajesh Bajaj vs. State of NCT of Delhi, (1999) 3 SCC 259 and Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd vs. Biological E Ltd. & Ors, 2000 3 NA528 No. 28005 of 2025 SCC (Cri) 615. It has been held that if a prima facie case is made out disclosing ingredients of the offence, court should not quash the charge sheet/complaint. It is equally well settled that at this stage questions of fact cannot be examined and a mini trial cannot be held. 8. In the instant matter the informant has made allegation in the first information report that he was in possession of the disputed property since the time of his ancestors and there was a "gharauni" in his favour. Later, in the year 2022 the applicant no.1, in connivance with co-accused persons, has got prepared a forged "gharauni" in his favour. In that regard the informant has made a complaint to the police and in the inquiry of the same, it was found that disputed property was in possession of the applicants. Later applicant no.1 has executed a forged Gift-deed of the disputed property in favour of his sons. In his statement, the concerned Lekhpal has stated that the "Gharauni" in favour of applicant no.1 Sabir was obtained by him on the basis of false information and he has executed forged Gift-deed. It was also shown that earlier the applicants have filed a civil suit and when no order was passed in their favour, they have filed another civil suit. In the matter, allegation of cheating and forgery is involved. In view of nature of accusations, various questions of facts are involved, which can only be decided by the trial Court on the basis of evidence. The submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicants call for determination on questions of fact, which may adequately be discerned / adjudicated only by the trial court. Even the submissions made on point of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court. Adjudication of questions of facts and appreciation of evidence or examining the reliability and credibility of the version, does not fall within the arena of jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS. 9. After considering arguments raised by learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned first information report and materials on record, no case for quashing of impugned proceedings is made out. Hence, the prayer 4 NA528 No. 28005 of 2025 sought above is hereby refused. 10. However, it is directed that in case applicants move an application for discharge before the trial court concerned within a period of three weeks from today, the same shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law by the court concerned. It is further directed that for a period of three weeks from today and in case such an application for discharge is filed within the aforesaid period, till the disposal of discharge application, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants, provided the applicants cooperate in early disposal of discharge application. 11. With the aforesaid observations, the application u/s 528 BNSS is
Decision
disposed of. September 10, 2025 'SP'/- (Raj Beer Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad