Dismissed¶19

Vijay Bahadur Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC15 Sept 2025NA528/35527/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 528 BNSS quashing application dismissed; protest petition against final report rejected by CJM Aligarh; Case No. 519 of 2024; Case Crime No.104 of 2025; Sections 420, 447, 506 IPC; alleged fraudulent sale deed by co-sharer in excess of share; alleged improper investigation; no abuse of process of Court; cognizance/summoning order dated 26.05.2025 upheld; Jitendra Kumar Sinha, J.; September 16, 2025.

What did the court decide?

On perusal of the entire material available on record, the Court found that there is no abuse of the process of the Court in the order impugned. ¶17

Vijay Bahadur Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 35527 of 2025

Vijay Bahadur Singh

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Umang Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶7

Court No. - 89

¶8

HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.

¶9

Heard Shri Umang Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Uma Shankar Mishra, learned AGA for the State.

¶10

The present application u/s 528 of BNSS has been filed with prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Case No. 519 of 2024 (Vijay Bahadur Singh Vs. Kapil Agrawal and others), arising out of Case Crime No.104 of 2025, under Sections 420, 447, 506 of IPC, P.S. Mahuakheda, District Aligarh as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 26.05.2025, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh.

¶11

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the vide order impugned, the learned Magistrate has rejected the protest petition of the applicant. It is further contended that the applicant has lodged a first information report under Sections 420, 447, 506 IPC against opposite party no.2. It is also contended that the applicant and opposite party no.2 are cosharer and the opposite party no.2 executed sale deed in excess of his share fraudulently. It is further contended that the Investigating Officer did not conduct proper and fair investigation and submitted final report. Against the said final report, protest petition was filed by the applicant, which was rejected by the learned Magistrate without appreciating the material available on record.

¶12

On the other hand, learned AGA refers to page 208 of the memo of application and submits that the Investigating Officer has conducted thorough investigation and has come to the conclusion that no offence under Sections 420, 447, 506 IPC is made out.

¶13

NA528 No. 35527 of 2025

¶14

¶15

In reply, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Investigating Officer has recorded his finding that one of the sale deed was executed on the basis of power of attorney by the wife of opposite party no.2, whereas the fact is that none of the sale deed has been executed on the basis of the power of attorney rather the sale deed that has been executed individually.

¶16

Learned counsel for the applicant has referred Annexure Nos.5 to 8 of the memo of application. The applicant has lodged a first information report under Sections 420, 447, 506 IPC against opposite party no.2 alleging therein that the opposite party no.2, who is co-sharer of the applicant executed sale deed in excess of his share fraudulently. The Investigating Officer after investigation submitted final report. Against the said final report, protest petition was filed by the applicant, learned Magistrate by detailed order has rejected the protest petition vide order impugned and has held that the protest petition filed by the applicant has no sufficient ground to stand.

¶17