Aditya Krishna Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Aditya Krishna Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the application under Section 528 BNSS deserves allowance, i.e., quashing of the judgment and order dated 10.04.2025 of the Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar in Misc. Case No. 609 of 2024 and remand for reconsideration. +1 more

Court's answer

In view of the facts and circumstances, no interference with the impugned order is required, and the application under Section 528 BNSS is dismissed.

Ratio / Principle

There is no material to substantiate the allegations of marpeet (assault/beating) and hurling of abuses against the respondents.

Key takeaways

The dispute between the parties is basically civil in nature, with multiple civil litigations pending, and the applicant can seek an appropriate civil remedy.ratio¶8
Criminal proceedings cannot be used as a weapon of harassment; giving a cloak of criminal offence to a civil issue, to take advantage of quick relief, is an abuse of the process of law.ratio¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Nand Prabha Shukla, J.) dismissed an application under Section 528 BNSS seeking quashing of the order dated 10.04.2025 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Room No. 02, Kanpur Nagar in Misc. Case No. 609 of 2024 (Aditya Krishna Vs. Digvijay Singh and Others) under Section 173(4) BNSS, whereby the applicant's application for lodging of FIR against respondent nos. 2 to 4 was rejected. The Court found a property dispute with multiple civil litigations pending between the parties, held the dispute to be basically civil in nature for which the applicant could seek appropriate civil remedy, noted absence of material to substantiate allegations of marpeet and hurling of abuses, and observed that criminal proceedings cannot be used as a weapon of harassment and that clothing a civil dispute with a criminal colour for quick relief is an abuse of the process of law, applying Usha Chakraborty & another Vs. State of West Bengal & another, 2023 Live Law (SC) 67.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 22603 of 2025

Aditya Krishna .....Applicant(s) Versus State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Abhishek Kulshrestha, Atul Tej Kulshrestha Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Court No. - 78

HON'BLE NAND PRABHA SHUKLA, J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

The present application u/s 528 BNSS has been filed with a prayer to allow this application and to quash the judgment and order dated 10.04.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Room No. 02, Kanpur Nagar in Misc. Case No. 609 of 2024 (Aditya Krishna Vs. Digvijay Singh and Others), u/s 173(4) BNSS, P.S. Rawatpur, District Kanpur Nagar and further be pleased to remand back this matter to the learned court below concerned for re-consideration.

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant moved an application u/s 173(4) of the BNSS for lodging of the FIR against the respondent nos. 2 to 4 but the same has been dismissed without application of mind in a mechanical manner.

From the perusal of records it transpires that there is a property dispute between the parties and multiple civil litigations are pending between them. The dispute is basically civil in nature, the applicant can seek appropriate civil remedy. As far as, the allegation of marpeet and hurling of abuses is concerned, there is no material to substantiate the same. It has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of judgments that where prima facie, the dispute appears to be civil in nature and has been given a criminal color to take advantage of a quick relief by lodging a criminal case, such an exercise is nothing but an abuse of the process of law which must be discouraged in its entirety.

NA528 No. 22603 of 2025

2

The applicant has given a cloak of criminal offence in respect to an issue which is of civil nature and can seek civil remedy. The criminal proceedings cannot be used as weapon of harassment. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Usha Chakraborty & another Vs. State of West Bengal & another, 2023 Live Law (SC) 67 has held that:-

"Jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised with care and caution and sparingly. To wit, exercise of the said power must be for securing the ends of justice and only in cases where refusal to exercise that power may result in the abuse of process of law".

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, no interference is required.

Accordingly, the present application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. stands dismissed .

September 16, 2025 Nisha

(Nand Prabha Shukla,J.)

Digitally signed by :- nisha kumari High Court of Judicature at Allahabad