Parasuram Jaiswal and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer for quashing the entire proceedings of Criminal Misc. Case No. 10846 of 2025 (State vs. Parshuram and others), including the impugned summoning order dated 22.09.2025 passed by the 2nd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Room No. 18, Sultanpur, as well as Charge-sheet No. 01/2025 dated 19.09.2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 91 of 2025, under Sections 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 352, 351(3), 3(5), 61(2)(a) BNS (old Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506, 34, 120-B IPC), Police Station Dhammaur, District Sultanpur, pending in the court aforesaid.

¶12

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that applicant no. 1, claiming himself to be the son of Bhondu, had instituted mutation proceedings before the Naib Tehsildar concerned, which were allowed, and the property in question standing in the name of Bhondu, was duly mutated in favour of applicant no. 1, Harishchandra, and his name was accordingly recorded in the revenue records, and thereafter, opposite party no. 2 challenged the said order before the S.D.M. concerned, which came to be dismissed, further the matter was carried before the Commissioner, where too the challenge raised by opposite party no. 2 was rejected. Subsequently, Writ-C No. 3213 of 2025 was filed before this

¶13

NA528 No. 1129 of 2026

¶14

2

¶15

Court and was disposed of on 04.04.2025, wherein this Court observed that it was not inclined to entertain the petition, while leaving it open to the parties to seek appropriate relief by instituting a civil suit, whereupon appropriate orders may be passed, in accordance with law.

¶16

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the dispute is purely civil in nature, arising out of rival claims over status and consequential mutation entries, and after having failed before the revenue authorities as well as before this Court, opposite party no. 2 has lodged the present first information report, merely disputing the domicile/status of applicant no. 1 on the basis of bald statements of certain villagers. It is next submitted that the present case is a classic example where a civil dispute has been given a criminal colour with an oblique motive to pressurize the applicants.

¶17

In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance upon the ratio of the judgment and order rendered in case of Mohammed Ibrahim and others vs. State of Bihar and another, (2009) 8 SCC 751 , State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 and Indian Oil Corporation vs. NEPC India Ltd., (2006) 6 SCC 736. Thus, the submission is that the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed.

¶18

Learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the aforesaid submissions.

¶19

Upon consideration of the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and the material available on record, it appears that the dispute had already travelled up to this Court, in writ proceedings, wherein opposite party no. 2 failed to secure any relief, and thereafter the present FIR has been lodged, disputing the status/domicile of applicant no. 1. Prima facie, the matter appears to be predominantly civil in nature.

¶20

Matter requires consideration.

¶21

Let notice be issued to opposite party no. 2, returnable at an early date.

¶22

Steps within a week.

¶23

The State as well as opposite party no. 2 may file their counter affidavits

¶24

NA528 No. 1129 of 2026

¶25

3

¶26

within three weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within one week thereafter.

¶27

List thereafter.

¶28

Till the next date of listing, the proceedings of Case Crime No. 91 of 2025 , under the aforesaid sections, Police Station Dhammaur, District Sultanpur, shall remain stayed, so far as the present applicants are concerned.

¶29

(Shree Prakash Singh,J.)

¶30

April 2, 2026

¶31

Raj

¶32

Digitally signed by :- RAJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Parasuram Jaiswal and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parasuram Jaiswal and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amlendra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Atul Verma and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Rakesh Singh @ Bajarii and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Aziz Azhad Naqvi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko.

Harshit Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) U.P. Lko. and Another

Abhishek Kumar Dixit vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another