The Allahabad High Court has reaffirmed that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, cannot be invoked to quash criminal proceedings merely because a civil dispute exists between the parties or because of alleged contradictions in witness statements. The Court emphasized that such matters are for trial courts to adjudicate, not for appellate intervention at the pre-trial stage.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute arose from a property-related conflict between the first informant, Prem Kumar Joel, a 73-year-old man, and the applicants, led by Mohd. Zeeshan Siddiqui, Director of Julex Infra Estate Pvt. Ltd. The parties had entered into a builder’s agreement concerning House No. 18/9, Kamla Nehru Road, Tehsil Sadar, Prayagraj. Under the agreement, Julex Infra constructed a two-storied building, with the ground floor allotted to Prem Kumar Joel and the first floor to the builder. Siddiqui operated his office from the first floor and secured a separate electricity connection, which remained functional for six years.
Key Facts
- Builder’s agreement dated prior to 2017, executed between Prem Kumar Joel and Julex Infra Estate Pvt. Ltd.
- Ground floor occupied by Prem Kumar Joel; first floor used by Mohd. Zeeshan Siddiqui for office purposes
- Electricity connection for first floor established and operational from approximately 2017 to July 2023
- On 24.07.2023, an altercation occurred at the property
- Informant alleged that applicants forcibly entered his house, misbehaved with him, and assaulted and disrobed his daughter-in-law
- Informant filed FIR No. 128 of 2023 at Police Station Kotwali Commissionerate, Prayagraj, on 09.08.2023
- Charge-sheet No. 13 of 2024 was filed on 20.02.2024 against applicants under Sections 354Kha, 452, 352, 323, 504, 506, and 448 IPC
- Cognizance order issued on 21.03.2024 by Civil Judge (J.D.), Court No. 21, Allahabad
- On 04.08.2023, applicant no. 1 filed a counter-FIR (No. 145 of 2023) alleging that the informant and his son assaulted him, robbed Rs. 50,000 in cash, and damaged CCTV and DVR equipment
- Charge-sheet in counter-FIR was also filed
- Civil Suit No. 1096 of 2023 for permanent injunction filed by Julex Infra Estate Pvt. Ltd. against Prem Kumar Joel
Procedural History
- 24.07.2023: Alleged incident at property
- 04.08.2023: Applicant no. 1 files FIR No. 145 of 2023
- 09.08.2023: Informant files FIR No. 128 of 2023
- 20.02.2024: Charge-sheet No. 13 of 2024 filed in Criminal Case No. 112 of 2024
- 21.03.2024: Cognizance and summoning order issued by Civil Judge (J.D.), Court No. 21, Allahabad
- 16.03.2026: Application under Section 528 BNSS filed before Allahabad High Court
The Parties' Positions
For the Applicants
- Argued that the criminal proceedings are a retaliatory measure to the counter-FIR filed by them
- Claimed the dispute is purely civil, rooted in the builder’s agreement and ownership rights
- Alleged material contradictions in witness statements
- Asserted that the alleged robbery of Rs. 5,000 from the daughter-in-law was unsubstantiated
- Highlighted that the electricity connection was unlawfully disconnected by the informant
- Cited pending civil suit as proof of the civil nature of the dispute
For the Respondent
- Maintained that the allegations in the FIR disclose serious offences under IPC, including outraging modesty and criminal force
- Stated that investigation was conducted properly and charge-sheet filed after collecting evidence
- Denied any mala fide intent in filing the FIR
- Argued that the existence of a civil suit does not negate criminal liability
Relief Sought
The applicants sought quashing of the charge-sheet dated 20.02.2024, the cognizance order dated 21.03.2024, and all proceedings in Criminal Case No. 112 of 2024, on grounds of abuse of process and lack of prima facie criminality.
The Legal Issue
Can the High Court exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS to quash criminal proceedings where a prima facie cognizable offence is alleged, despite the existence of a parallel civil dispute and alleged contradictions in witness statements?
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The applicants relied on State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal to argue that where the allegations, even if accepted at face value, do not disclose a cognizable offence, or where proceedings are manifestly malicious or retaliatory, the High Court may quash them. They contended that the FIR was filed with ulterior motive to harass them after they initiated a counter-FIR and civil suit. They emphasized that the core dispute is contractual and proprietary, and that the criminal allegations are fabricated to gain leverage in the civil litigation. They further argued that contradictions in witness statements and the absence of corroboration for the alleged robbery rendered the case unsustainable.
For the Respondent/State
The State and the informant countered that the allegations of forcible entry, assault, and outrage of modesty are serious cognizable offences under the IPC. They submitted that the existence of a civil suit does not bar criminal prosecution, and that contradictions in evidence are matters for trial, not for quashing at the pre-trial stage. They relied on Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra to argue that the High Court cannot act as a trial court and must not evaluate evidence or weigh credibility at this stage.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a structured review of the legal framework governing inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS, which corresponds to Section 482 CrPC. It reaffirmed the principles laid down in Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra and State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal, emphasizing that such powers are extraordinary and must be exercised sparingly.
"The inherent power of the High Court under Section 528 BNSS ought to be exercised to prevent miscarriage of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court or to otherwise secure the ends of justice and the Court possesses wide discretionary powers."
The Court noted that the FIR, on its face, alleges acts constituting cognizable offences under Sections 354Kha (outraging modesty), 452 (house-trespass), 352 (criminal force), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 504 (intentional insult), 506 (criminal intimidation), and 448 (house-trespass after preparation for hurt). The Court held that these allegations, even if contested, are sufficient to prima facie establish a case for trial.
The Court explicitly rejected the argument that the pendency of a civil suit or the existence of a counter-FIR justifies quashing. It observed:
"Whether the present case is a counterblast of the FIR lodged by the applicant no. 1 or not, is a matter for the trial court to decide which requires evaluation of evidence and this Court cannot go through all this, in this proceeding, and form an opinion in this regard."
It further clarified that contradictions in witness statements, alleged fabrication, or motive behind the FIR are matters for cross-examination and evidentiary evaluation at trial. The Court held that the High Court cannot assume the role of a trial court under Section 528 BNSS.
The Court also dismissed the contention that the dispute is purely civil. It held that even if the underlying cause is contractual, the alleged acts of trespass, assault, and outrage of modesty are independent criminal acts that cannot be subsumed under civil remedies.
The Verdict
The application under Section 528 BNSS was dismissed. The Court held that the allegations in the FIR prima facie disclose cognizable offences under the IPC. The existence of a parallel civil suit and counter-FIR does not warrant quashing. The trial court is the appropriate forum to evaluate witness credibility, contradictions, and motive. No order of quashing was issued. All proceedings in Criminal Case No. 112 of 2024 shall continue.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Civil Disputes Do Not Bar Criminal Prosecution
- Practitioners must advise clients that even if a dispute originates from a civil contract or property disagreement, criminal acts such as trespass, assault, or outrage of modesty remain independently prosecutable
- A pending civil suit is not a ground for quashing criminal proceedings under Section 528 BNSS
Trial Courts, Not High Courts, Assess Witness Credibility
- Contradictions in witness statements, inconsistencies in FIR and statements, or alleged fabrication must be raised during trial, not in quashing applications
- High Courts will not conduct mini-trials under Section 528 BNSS, even if evidence appears weak
Counter-FIRs Are Not Automatic Grounds for Quashing
- Filing a counter-FIR does not transform criminal proceedings into retaliatory or malicious
- The Court will examine the substance of the allegations, not the sequence of filings
- Applicants must demonstrate clear mala fide intent, not mere retaliation, to invoke quashing
