Dismissed¶37

Amavas Pal and 8 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC23 Feb 2026NA528/13143/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR/charge-sheet/cognizance; inherent powers; Section 528 BNSS; Section 482 Cr.P.C.; prima facie cognizable offence; civil dispute no bar to criminal proceedings; disputed questions of fact left to trial; Gata No. 82K vs Gata No. 95K title dispute; delay in FIR; absence of medical evidence; State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335; Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra 2021 SCC Online SC 315; BNS Sections 191(2), 115(2), 352, 351, 324(4); Criminal Case No. 213 of 2025; Case Crime No. 343 of 2024; FIR dated 25.07.2024; charge-sheet dated 17.08.2024; cognizance dated 02.01.2025; applications dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None; the prayer for quashing the entire proceedings of the criminal case was refused. ¶37

Amavas Pal and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the prayer for quashing the entire proceedings of the criminal case was refused.

¶37

Issue for consideration

Whether the cognizance order dated 02.01.2025, charge-sheet dated 17.08.2024 and entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 213 of 2025 (arising out of Case Crime No. 343 of 2024) are liable to be quashed in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 BNSS. +2 more

¶18

Court's answer

No ground is made out to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the Court under Section 528 BNSS for quashing of the criminal proceedings against the applicants; the prayer for quashing is refused.

¶36

Ratio / Principle

At the stage of considering an application for quashing, the Court is only required to examine whether a prima facie case is made out on the basis of the allegations in the FIR, without a detailed enquiry into the truthfulness of the allegations.

¶31

Key takeaways

The FIR contains specific and categorical allegations of demolition of the boundary wall, assault and criminal intimidation, which on their face prima facie disclose cognizable offences and are not inherently improbable or absurd at this stage.ratio¶32
Merely because a civil remedy is available does not bar criminal proceedings if the ingredients of a criminal offence are otherwise made out; the contention that the dispute is purely civil does not by itself warrant quashing.ratio¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Padam Narain Mishra, J.), by judgment dated February 24, 2026, dismissed two applications under Section 528 BNSS — including connected Application U/s 528 BNSS No. 18286 of 2025 (Devender Pal v. State of U.P.) — seeking quashing of the cognizance order dated 02.01.2025, charge-sheet dated 17.08.2024 and entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 213 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime No. 343 of 2024 under Sections 191(2), 115(2), 352, 351 and 324(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, arising from an FIR dated 25.07.2024 alleging demolition of a toilet/boundary wall, assault and criminal intimidation. Held: the FIR contained specific and categorical allegations prima facie disclosing cognizable offences; availability of a civil remedy does not bar criminal prosecution where offence ingredients are made out; the pleas that the informant side was the aggressor, the rival title claims over Gata No. 82K and Gata No. 95K, delay in lodging the FIR and absence of medical evidence were disputed questions of fact/matters of evidence for trial, not grounds for quashing at the threshold. Relying on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, 2021 SCC Online SC 315, the Court declined to exercise inherent jurisdiction. Interim application, if any, disposed of.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 13143 of 2025

¶3

Amavas Pal And 8 Others

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of U.P. and Another

¶7

.....Opposite Party(s)

¶8

Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Ravi Kant Verma
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A., Shri Kant Shukla

¶9

Along with :

¶10

1. Application U/s 528 Bnss No. 18286 of 2025: Devender Pal

¶11

Versus

¶12

State of U.P. and another

¶13

Court No. - 82

¶14

HON'BLE PADAM NARAIN MISHRA, J.

¶15

Both the applications shall be heard and decided together.

¶16

Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 has filed counter affidavit, which is taken on record.

¶17

Heard Sri Arpit Mandhyan, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Ravi Kant Verma, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shri Kant Shukla, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶18

The present application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 has been filed for quashing of Cognizance order dated 02.01.2025 and Charge-sheet dated 17.08.2024 and entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 213 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime No. 343 of 2024, under Sections 191(2), 115(2), 352, 351 and 324(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

¶19

Brief facts of the case are that an FIR was lodged on 25.07.2024 against the applicants-accused alleging that the informant had constructed a toilet behind his house for the last 35 years which was demolished by the applicants along with other co-accused persons on 21.07.2024. When the informant and his wife objected with regard to the same, they were assaulted and threatened to kill. After investigation, the Investigating Officer has

¶20

NA528 No. 13143 of 2025

¶21

¶22

submitted charge-sheet on 17.08.2024, upon which, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence on 02.01.2025 and issued summons against the accused-applicants.

¶23

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motives. It is further submitted that the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature, arising out of ownership and possession of land, and the same has been given a colour of criminality. It is further submitted that the informant side was, in fact, the aggressor and had assaulted the women of the applicants' family, namely Paramshila and Premshila, resulting in injuries.

¶24

It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that, in respect of the said incident, an application dated 22.07.2024 was moved before the concerned police authorities, however, no First Information Report was registered. Being aggrieved with the same, the one of the applicants namely, Premshila has filed an application under Section 175(3) of the BNSS in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoria, which was dismissed on technical ground i.e. age of the applicant has not been mentioned and incomplete affidavit has been filed by her. It is further submitted that there is an unexplained delay of four days in lodging the impugned FIR, which casts serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution case. Learned counsel for the applicants has further submitted that there is no medical evidence on record to substantiate the allegations made in the FIR and, as such, the essential ingredients to attract the offence under Section 115(2) of the BNS are not made out. Lastly, it is submitted that the applicant is the owner of the land in dispute by way of a registered saledeed, and thus, the present criminal proceedings are nothing but an abuse of the process of law and the same is liable to be quashed by this Court.

¶25

Per contra , learned AGA for the State and learned counsel for opposite party no. 2, have vehemently opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of the applicants. It is submitted that from the perusal of the First Information Report, it discloses the commission of cognizable offences and, at this stage, the allegations cannot be said to be inherently improbable or absurd so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. It is further submitted that the dispute sought to be projected by the applicants as a purely civil dispute is misconceived. The FIR specifically pertains to land comprised in Gata No. 82K, whereas the applicants are placing reliance upon Gata No. 95K, which is entirely distinct. This, according to the learned AGA, clearly demonstrates that the defence set up by the applicants is not only factually disputed but also prima facie untenable.

¶26

NA528 No. 13143 of 2025

¶27

¶28

I have considered the rival submission made by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶29

The scope and ambit of interference by this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS/Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., is no longer res integra and stands crystallized through a catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

¶30

In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has illustratively laid down the categories of cases wherein the extraordinary jurisdiction for quashing may be exercised. However, it has been simultaneously cautioned that such power is to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection, and only in rarest of rare cases, so as to prevent abuse of the process of law or to secure the ends of justice.

¶31

Further, in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra 2021 SCC Online SC 315 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated and further clarified the limitations on the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. It has been held, inter alia , that where the allegations made in the FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence, the Court should ordinarily refrain from interfering at the threshold. It has also been emphasized that disputed questions of fact, which require appreciation of evidence, cannot be adjudicated in proceedings for quashing, as the same fall within the domain of the trial court. Thus, the settled legal position is that at the stage of considering an application for quashing, the Court is only required to examine whether a prima facie case is made out on the basis of the allegations in the FIR, without embarking upon a detailed enquiry into the truthfulness or otherwise of such allegations.

¶32

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the First Information Report contains specific and categorical allegations against the applicants with regard to demolition of the boundary wall, assault, and criminal intimidation. The allegations, on their face, prima facie, disclose the commission of cognizable offences and cannot be said to be inherently improbable or absurd at this stage. Secondly, the contention of the applicants that the dispute is purely civil in nature does not, by itself, warrant quashing of the criminal proceedings, particularly when the FIR contains clear allegations of use of criminal force and intimidation. It is well settled that merely because a civil remedy is available, the same does not bar criminal proceedings if the ingredients of a criminal offence are otherwise made out. Thirdly, the defence sought to be raised by the applicants, namely that the informant side was the aggressor and that the applicants' side had sustained injuries, pertains to disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated upon in proceedings under Section 528 BNSS. The same can

¶33

NA528 No. 13143 of 2025

¶34

¶35

only be examined on the basis of evidence led during trial. Fourthly, the controversy relating to Gata No. 82K and Gata No. 95K involves adjudication of title and possession over the land in dispute, which are purely factual issues requiring appreciation of documentary as well as oral evidence. The same cannot be conclusively determined in the present proceedings. Fifthly, the submission regarding delay in lodging the FIR and the alleged absence of medical evidence are also matters which fall within the realm of appreciation of evidence and do not, by themselves, constitute valid grounds for quashing the proceedings at the threshold.

¶36

In the light of foregoing discussions and the facts and circumstances of the present case, no ground is made out to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 BNSS for quashing of the criminal proceedings against the applicants. As such, the prayer for quashing the entire proceedings of criminal case is hereby refused .

¶37

Accordingly, both the present applications filed on behalf of the applicants under Section 528 BNSS are hereby dismissed .

¶38

Interim application, if any, stands disposed of.

¶39

February 24, 2026 v.k. updh.

¶40

(Padam Narain Mishra,J.)

¶41

Digitally signed by :- VINOD KUMAR UPADHYAY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Amavas Pal and 8 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amavas Pal and 8 Others v. State of U.P. 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

Rajendra Singh Chawla Vs State of U.P. and Another

Akash Rajbhar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajeev Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anuj Kumar Sharma and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Dipak @ Deepu @ Deep Kishore vs State of U.P. and Another

Subhash Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another