Allowed¶28

Asbind Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC29 Jan 2026NA528/46444/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR proceedings; inherent powers; Section 528 BNSS; civil dispute given criminal colour; sections 406/504/506 IPC; sale deed; no consideration paid; charge-sheet quashed; cognizance/summoning order quashed; ACJM Court No.11 Azamgarh; P.S. Phoolpur; Case Crime No.493 of 2023; abuse of process; A.M. Mohan 2024 SCC OnLine SC 339; G. Sagar Suri (2000) 2 SCC 636; Naresh Kumar 2024 INSC 196; Paramjeet Batra (2013) 11 SCC 673; Kamlesh Singh (2024) 6 ILRA 15.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; charge-sheet dated 18.02.2024, cognizance/summoning order dated 07.05.2024 and the entire proceedings of Case No.14093 of 2024 (State vs. Asbind and Another) arising out of Case Crime No.493 of 2023 quashed. ¶28

Asbind Kumar and Another vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire proceedings of Case No.14093 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No.493 of 2023, including the charge-sheet dated 18.02.2024 and the cognizance/summoning order dated 07.05.2024, should be quashed in exercise of the inherent power under Section 528 BNSS. +1 more

¶9

Court's answer

Since the amount allegedly paid by opposite party no.2 was not received by the applicants and not a single penny was paid to the executor of the sale deed (Sunita Pandit), hardly any case is made out against the applicants with regard to the alleged offence narrated in the FIR.

¶15

Ratio / Principle

The dispute between the parties pertains to a sale deed performed between opposite party no.2 and the executor Sunita Pandit, for which a civil suit ought to be preferred; the dispute is predominantly civil in nature and has been given the colour of criminality only to harass the applicants.

¶27

Key takeaways

The present case is a fit case for exercise of the inherent power under Section 528 BNSS to quash the impugned charge-sheet, cognizance/summoning order and entire proceedings, since a proper procedure exists to file a civil suit for the grievances of opposite party no.2.ratio¶24
The entire proceedings of Case No.14093 of 2024 (State vs. Asbind and Another) arising out of Case Crime No.493 of 2023, under sections 406, 504, 506 IPC, pending before the ACJM, Court No.11, Azamgarh, including the charge-sheet dated 18.02.2024 and cognizance/summoning order dated 07.05.2024, are quashed.ratio¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Saurabh Srivastava, J.) allowed Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 46444 of 2025 (Asbind Kumar v. State of U.P.) and quashed the charge-sheet dated 18.02.2024, the cognizance/summoning order dated 07.05.2024 and the entire proceedings of Case No.14093 of 2024 (State v. Asbind and Another) arising out of Case Crime No.493 of 2023, under sections 406, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Phoolpur, District Azamgarh. The Court found that the amount allegedly paid by opposite party no.2 was not received by the applicants and not a single penny was paid to Sunita Pandit, executor of the sale deed, so hardly any case was made out; the dispute was predominantly civil in nature and had been given a criminal angle only to harass the applicants, the proper remedy being a civil suit. Reliance was placed on A.M. Mohan (2024 SCC OnLine SC 339), G. Sagar Suri (2000) 2 SCC 636 and Naresh Kumar (2024 INSC 196); a Coordinate Bench ruling in Kamlesh Singh (2024) 6 ILRA 15 was also noted.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 46444 of 2025

¶3

Asbind Kumar And Another

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

	Versus
State of U.P. and Another		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)		: Surjeet Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)		: G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 75

¶7

HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

¶8

Heard Sri Surjeet Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Upendra Kumar Pushkar, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, who preferred vakalatnama in Court today, which is taken on record.

¶9

The instant application has been preferred for seeking quashing of the entire proceedings of Case No.14093 of 2024 (State vs. Asbind and Another) arising out of Case Crime No.493 of 2023, under sections 406, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Phoolpur, District- Azamgarh, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.11, Azamgarh, including charge-sheet dated 18.02.2024 and cognizance/summoning order dated 07.05.2024.

¶10

Learned counsel for applicants argued that applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case by opposite party no.2 only to harass them since no offence as alleged, has ever been committed by them. It has also been argued by learned counsel for applicants that the present matter pertains to a civil dispute, which has been arisen out of the execution of sale deed, which has been performed by friend of the applicants, namely, Sunita Pandit. It is an admitted fact that not a single penny has been paid to the person, who executed registered sale deed in favour of opposite party no.2 and as such the allegation in shape of extending Rs.4,81,000/- in favour of applicants in pursuance to transferring certain piece of land, which has not been performed, will not be cause for instituting FIR at Case Crime No.493 of 2023 by opposite party no.2. So far as conduct of the applicants stands

¶11

NA528 No. 46444 of 2025

¶12

¶13

clear that once the amount has not been received and not a single penny has been paid by opposite party no.2 to the executor of the sale deed, i.e., one Sunita Pandit, there is hardly any case made out against the applicants. Learned counsel for applicants has further submitted that only to make pressure and harass the applicants, opposite party no.2 implicated them in the present criminal proceedings by way of giving criminal colour to the civil dispute. Learned counsel for applicants further submitted that there is hardly any evidence against applicants to corroborate them with the alleged incident. It has also been argued by learned counsel for applicants that without conducting fair investigation, the concerned Investigating Officer submitted chargesheet against applicants whereupon without applying its judicial mind, learned court concerned took cognizance of offence over the said chargesheet which is abuse of process of law and as such, same may be quashed.

¶14

Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2 as well as learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer sought through the instant application and rebutted the stands taken up by learned counsel for applicants by way of submitting that the contentions, which are sought to be raised on behalf of applicants, would relate to disputed questions of fact, and would involve appreciation of evidence. It is also submitted that at the time of taking cognizance, only a prima facie case is to be seen and the court concerned is not expected to hold a mini trial but at the same, it has not been disputed that not a single penny has been paid to the person, who have been stated to perform the alleged sale deed.

¶15

After having the rival contentions raised by learned counsel for parties and perusal of entire material available on record, it is crystal clear that the allegations which have been levelled against applicants, related to dupe the amount paid by opposite party no.2 for execution of some sale deed by one Sunita Pandit, have not been received by them, nor a single penny has been paid in favour of the executor. As such, there is hardly any case made out against the applicants with regard to the alleged offence as narrated in the FIR. It is also clear that whatsoever the dispute has been arisen between the parties is with regard to some sale deed performed between the opposite party no.2 and executor, Sunita Pandit, for which a civil suit has to be preferred at the behest of aggrieved person, i.e., opposite party no.2, meaning thereby, dispute between parties is of civil in nature which has been given colour of criminality. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of A.M.

¶16

NA528 No. 46444 of 2025

¶17

¶18

Mohan Vs. State Represented by SHO and another, [2024 SCC OnLine SC 339] has held that there is a growing tendency to convert purely civil dispute into criminal cases. The observations made by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P. [(2000) 2 SCC 636] are also relevant which are as under:-

¶19

"8. 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."

¶20

It would be appropriate to mention following paragraph of a judgment passed by Supreme Court in Naresh Kumar and another vs. The State of Karnataka and another, [2024 INSC 196] , that in similar circumstances inherent power can be exercised:

¶21

"6. In the case of Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand (2013) 11 SCC 673, this Court recognized that although the inherent powers of a High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be exercised sparingly, yet the High Court must not hesitate in quashing such criminal proceedings which are essentially of a civil nature. This is what was held:

¶22

"12. While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code the High Court has to be cautious. This power is to be used sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of facts alleged therein. Whether essential ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High Court. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence. In such a situation, if a civil remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted as has happened in this case, the High Court should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of the court."

¶23

The aforementioned legal position has also been considered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Kamlesh Singh vs. State of U.P. and others [(2024) 6 ILRA 15] .

¶24

The present case is a fit case where in exercise of inherent power under Section 528 BNSS, the impugned charge-sheet along with

¶25

NA528 No. 46444 of 2025

¶26

¶27

cognizance/summoning order and entire proceedings of the present case can be quashed since there is proper procedure to file a civil suit with regard to grievances of the opposite party no.2 and the same itself shows the dispute being predominantly of civil in nature which could not be given a criminal angle, only to harass applicants.

¶28

In view thereof, the entire proceedings of Case No.14093 of 2024 (State vs. Asbind and Another) arising out of Case Crime No.493 of 2023, under sections 406, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Phoolpur, District- Azamgarh, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.11, Azamgarh, including charge-sheet dated 18.02.2024 and cognizance/summoning order dated 07.05.2024, are hereby quashed.

¶29

Accordingly, the present application stands allowed .

¶30

February 13, 2026 Saif

¶31

(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)

¶32

Digitally signed by :- SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Asbind Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Asbind Kumar 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

Lokesh Kumar and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Arshad Ali and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Jitendra Kumar Patwa vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajesh Kumar Patel vs State of U.P. and 10 Others

Ankit and 9 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Gagan Singh vs State of U.P. and Another