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

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 24025 of 2025

¶3

Anuj Kumar Sharma And Another

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Amit Kumar Mishra, Suneel Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s): G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 82

¶7

HON'BLE PADAM NARAIN MISHRA, J.

¶8

Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for applicants, Ms. Sarika Tulsiani, appeared in person, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶9

The present application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed by the applicants seeking quashing of the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 13739 of 2022 (State v. Anuj Kumar Sharma and another), arising out of Case Crime No. 541 of 2021, under Sections 323, 504, 506 of IPC, Police Station Sahibabad, District Ghaziabad.

¶10

Brief facts of the present case is that an FIR was lodged by opposite party no. 2 against four persons alleging that the applicants along with other co-accused persons assaulted the complainant, abused her and snatched her mobile and committed mar-peet with her and threatened her. Initially, the FIR was lodged under Sections 323, 504, 354, 392 IPC against four persons. However, after investigation charge sheet has been submitted only against two persons under Section 323, 504, 506 IPC.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that in the present case there is no injury report or medical evidence on record. He further submitted that prima facie offence under Section 323 IPC

¶12

NA528 No. 24025 of 2025

¶13

2

¶14

is not made out. Further, FIR has been lodged after delay of 12 days within giving any explanation for delay in lodging the FIR. He has further submitted that the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature. Statement of independent witnesses is also does not disclose the offence of criminal intimidation. He has next submitted that cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate in mechanical manner without applying judicial mind.

¶15

Per contra, Ms. Sarika Tulsiani, who appeared in person as well as learned AGA submitted that in the present case independent witnesses have supported the prosecution version and after due investigation, the investigating officer has submitted charge sheet only against two persons which reflects fairness in the investigation. They lastly submitted that at this stage while the court exercising its inherent jurisdiction, disputed question of fact cannot be examined.

¶16

Having considered the rival submission of the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material available on the records, it appears that the statement of independent witnesses available as Annexure No.5 of the paper book have not supported the allegation of made by the prosecution. The independent witnesses namely Khemchandra Sharma and the Dinesh Chandra in their statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. clearly stated that the complainant namely Ms. Sarika Tulsaini has lodged an FIR by exaggerating the matter. Furthermore, no medical or injury report is available on record to support the allegation under Section 323 IPC. From perusal of file, it also appeared that on page 61 dated 30.03.2021, Vishal Sharma, who was earlier named as accused in FIR and later on, after investigation his name was dropped by investigating officer, submitted an application before the Vice Chairman, Ghaziabad Development Authority, Ghaziabad regarding clarification of boundary of disputed land. In reply, the GDA on 13.04.2021 has clearly stated that western wall of Vishal Sharma's

¶17

NA528 No. 24025 of 2025

¶18

3

¶19

house did not belong to opposite party no. 2, which clearly reflects that there is civil dispute existed regarding of wall/encroachment of the western side. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is evident that the present criminal proceedings has been initiated out of the civil dispute pending between the parties.

¶20

In case of G. Sagar Suri and Another v. State of U.P. and Others, (2000) 2 SCC 636 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has made the following observation:-

¶21

"Jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code has to be exercised with great care. In exercise of its jurisdiction the High Court is not to examine the matter superficially. It is to be seen if a matter, which is essentially of a civil nature, has been given a cloak of criminal offence. Criminal proceedings are not a short cut of other remedies available in law. Before issuing process a criminal court has to exercise a great deal of caution. For the accused it is a serious matter. This Court has laid certain principles on the basis of which the High Court is to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. Jurisdiction under this section has to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice."

¶22

Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, the case in hand is a fit case for the exercise of inherent jurisdiction of this court in order to avoid abuse of process of law.

¶23

In view of the above discussion, the application under Section 528 BNSS is allowed.

¶24

The entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 13739 of 2022 (State v. Anuj Kumar Sharma and another), arising out of Case Crime No. 541 of 2021, under Sections 323, 504, 506 of IPC, Police Station Sahibabad, District Ghaziabad is hereby quashed.

¶25

February 23, 2026 v.k. updh.

¶26

(Padam Narain Mishra,J.)

¶27

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anuj Kumar Sharma and Another 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

All orders in this case

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

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

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

Subhash Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another