# Sanoj Kumar Yadav v. State Of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 9 ILRA 15
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-09-09
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 6653 of 2025
- **Bench:** Shree Prakash Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sanoj-kumar-yadav-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53881
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

G.A.

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to - (i) Whether the charges can
be altered on an application moved by either of
the parties; and (ii) At the stage of framing of
charges, what material is to be looked into by
the trial court.

Headnotes
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - SS. 323, 324,
342, 504, 506 r.w. S. 34 and S. 120-B, 307
& 302 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 -
S. 216 - Alteration of charge - Power to
alter or add any charge before judgment
lies exclusively with the Court; such
power may be exercised suo motu or on
an application moved by parties, but not
as a matter of right - Alteration of charge -
Nature of power - Exclusive domain of the
trial court; parties cannot claim alteration
as of right - Framing of charges - Scope of
enquiry - At the stage of framing charges,
only prima facie case to be seen; mini trial
not permissible; sufficiency of grounds to
proceed to be determined on materials
placed before the court.
Held: The power under S. 216 Cr.P.C. is the
exclusive domain of the court - no party can
seek alteration of charge as of right - At the
stage of framing charges, the trial court is only
required to determine whether a prima facie
case is made out - Mini trial not permissible -
Impugned
order
dated
03.07.2025
passe
Impugned order dated 03.07.2025 passed by
Sessions Judge, Sultanpur, examined the entire
record and found appropriate grounds for
alteration of charges - No illegality or infirmity
found - Application dismissed - Trial court
directed to proceed in accordance with law -
High Court found no illegality or infirmity in the
impugned order of Sessions Judge. (paras
12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20) (E-7)

Case Law Cited
Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. Raj
Kumar Arora & Ors., 2025 SCC OnLine SC
819; State of Rajasthan v. Ashok Kumar
Kashyap, (2021) 11 SCC 191; P. Vijayan v.
State of Kerala, (2010) 2 SCC 398; State of
Karnataka v. M.R. Hiremath, (2019) 7 SCC
515; State of T.N. v. N. Suresh Rajan, (2014)
11 SCC 709; Radhey Lal v. State of U.P. &
Anr., Criminal Appeal No. 1014 of 2025.

List of Acts
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; Indian Penal Code, 1860;
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

List of Keywords
Alteration of charge; Framing of charges; Prima
facie case; Mini trial; Exclusive domain; Suo
motu power; No right to alteration; Judicial
discretion; Charge modification; Criminal trial.

Case Arising From
Order dated 03.07.2025 passed by Sessions
Judge, Sultanpur, in Sessions Trial No. 208 of
2024 (arising out of Case Crime No. 363 of
2023, P.S. Motigarpur, District Sultanpur).

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Applicant:
Mr. Satyendra Kumar Tiwari, Mr. Rajesh Pandey
16 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Advs. for the Respondents:
Mr. Anirudh Kumar Singh, A.G.A.-I; Mr. Sushil
Kumar Pandey; Mr. Nirmal Kumar Pandey,
A.G.A.s

## Text

9 All. Sanoj Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
15

17. The present application is hereby
dismissed as not maintainable.

18. However, it is open to the
applicant to pursue the appropriate remedy,
provided under law.

19. Consigned to the records.
---------
(2025) 9 ILRA 15
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 09.09.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 6653 of 2025

Sanoj Kumar Yadav ...Applicant
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Satyendra Kumar Tiwari, Rajesh Pandey

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to - (i) Whether the charges can
be altered on an application moved by either of
the parties; and (ii) At the stage of framing of
charges, what material is to be looked into by
the trial court.

Headnotes
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - SS. 323, 324,
342, 504, 506 r.w. S. 34 and S. 120-B, 307
& 302 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 -
S. 216 - Alteration of charge - Power to
alter or add any charge before judgment
lies exclusively with the Court; such
power may be exercised suo motu or on
an application moved by parties, but not
as a matter of right - Alteration of charge -
Nature of power - Exclusive domain of the
trial court; parties cannot claim alteration
as of right - Framing of charges - Scope of
enquiry - At the stage of framing charges,
only prima facie case to be seen; mini trial
not permissible; sufficiency of grounds to
proceed to be determined on materials
placed before the court.
Held: The power under S. 216 Cr.P.C. is the
exclusive domain of the court - no party can
seek alteration of charge as of right - At the
stage of framing charges, the trial court is only
required to determine whether a prima facie
case is made out - Mini trial not permissible -
Impugned
order
dated
03.07.2025
passe
Impugned order dated 03.07.2025 passed by
Sessions Judge, Sultanpur, examined the entire
record and found appropriate grounds for
alteration of charges - No illegality or infirmity
found - Application dismissed - Trial court
directed to proceed in accordance with law -
High Court found no illegality or infirmity in the
impugned order of Sessions Judge. (paras
12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20) (E-7)

Case Law Cited
Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. Raj
Kumar Arora & Ors., 2025 SCC OnLine SC
819; State of Rajasthan v. Ashok Kumar
Kashyap, (2021) 11 SCC 191; P. Vijayan v.
State of Kerala, (2010) 2 SCC 398; State of
Karnataka v. M.R. Hiremath, (2019) 7 SCC
515; State of T.N. v. N. Suresh Rajan, (2014)
11 SCC 709; Radhey Lal v. State of U.P. &
Anr., Criminal Appeal No. 1014 of 2025.

List of Acts
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; Indian Penal Code, 1860;
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

List of Keywords
Alteration of charge; Framing of charges; Prima
facie case; Mini trial; Exclusive domain; Suo
motu power; No right to alteration; Judicial
discretion; Charge modification; Criminal trial.

Case Arising From
Order dated 03.07.2025 passed by Sessions
Judge, Sultanpur, in Sessions Trial No. 208 of
2024 (arising out of Case Crime No. 363 of
2023, P.S. Motigarpur, District Sultanpur).

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Applicant:
Mr. Satyendra Kumar Tiwari, Mr. Rajesh Pandey
16 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Advs. for the Respondents:
Mr. Anirudh Kumar Singh, A.G.A.-I; Mr. Sushil
Kumar Pandey; Mr. Nirmal Kumar Pandey,
A.G.A.s

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shree Prakash
Singh, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Satyendra Kumar Tewari
and Mr. Rajesh Pandey, learned counsels
for the applicant, Mr. Anirudh Kumar
Singh, learned A.G.A.-I, Mr. Sushil Kumar
Pandey and Mr. Nirmal Kumar Pandey,
learned A.G.A.'s appearing for the State.

2. The instant application filed under
section
482
Cr.P.C./528
of
the
B.N.S.S.,2023, is directed against the order
dated 03-07-2025, passed by the learned
Sessions Judge, Sultanpur, in Sessions Trial
No. 208 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime
No. 363 of 2023, under sections 323, 324,
342, 504, 506 readwith section 34 and
section 120-B, 307 and 302 of I.P.C.
whereby, the learned Sessions Judge has
altered the charge u/s 302 I.P.C. to u/s 304
of I.P.C. and u/s 307 I.P.C. to u/s 308
I.P.C., thus the charges are framed under
sections
323/34,342/34,
308/34,304/34,504,506,120-B of I.P.C.

3. The briefly stated facts are that the
opposite parties no. 2 to 4 had an old
enmity with the applicant, therefore, on 2011-2023, in the morning, when the
nephews of applicant namely, Vikas Yadav
and Amit Yadav, were going for natural
call, the opposite parties no. 2 to 4 tried to
crush them by a vehicle namely, Bolero
and when, an alarm was raised, the accused
persons came out from their vehicle and
started beating both the injured, with
'Lathi-Danda' and with sharp edged
weapons
and
when
the
passersby
intervened, the opposite parties no. 2 to 4
ran away from the place of occurrence. In
the said incident, both the injured persons
received serious injuries and they were
taken
to
the
hospital
at
Sultanpur,
thereafter, they were referred to Trauma
Centre, Lucknow. During the treatment,
one of the nephew of the applicant namely,
Amit Yadav died on 21-11-2023 and an
information regarding his death was given
at the police station on 22-11-2023.

4. The first information report bearing
Case Crime No. 0363 of 2023, was initially
lodged under sections 323, 324, 342, 504 &
506 of I.P.C. at Police Station-Motigarpur,
District-Sultanpur and after the death of
one of the injured, sections 302 & 307 of
I.P.C. were added.

5. The post-mortem report, which was
conducted
at
government
hospital,Lucknow, finds mention of five
injuries over the body of the deceased. The
case was committed for trial before the
learned Sessions Judge, Sultanpur and
thereafter, an application under section 216
of Cr.P.C. for altering the charges was
moved on behalf of the opposite parties no.
2 to 4, on 16-05-2024, whereafter, the
applicant filed objection, on 21-05-2024
and the learned trial court vide order dated
17-01-2025, allowed the application under
section 216 of Cr.P.C. moved by the
accused persons and altered the charges
from sections 302 & 307 of I.P.C. to
sections 304 & 308 of I.P.C., respectively.

6. Being aggrieved with the order
dated 17-01-2025, passed by the learned
Sessions Judge, Sultanpur, the applicant
moved an application under section 482
Cr.P.C./528 of B.N.S.S.,2023 bearing no.
2533 of 2025, wherein this court passed an
order on 18-04-2025. This court vide
aforesaid order, quashed the order dated
17.1.2025 and the learned trial court was
9 All. Sanoj Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
17
given liberty to pass appropriate order
keeping in view the provisions contained in
Section 216 of Cr.P.C., on it's own
instance, and also keeping in view the
observations made in the order, after
affording opportunity of hearing to all
concerned.

7. After the aforesaid order was
passed, the applicant again approached the
learned trial court while moving an
application
with
order
dated
18-042025,wherein the order impugned dated 0307-2025 is passed by the learned Sessions
Judge, Sultanpur.

8. Having at a glace of the order
impugned, it is apparent that the learned
Sessions Judge, has observed that though
the application No. 8-B, under section 216
of Cr.P.C. was moved on behalf of the
opposite parties no. 2 to 4, but, when the
objection was raised on it's admissibility,
orally, the application was not pressed and
after noting the oral admission for not
pressing the application by the applicant,
the order dated 17-01-2025 was passed,
but, the same was concealed by the
applicant while filing the application under
section
482
Cr.P.C./528
of
the
B.N.S.S.,2023 bearing no. 2533 of 2025,
before this court.

9. After recording the aforesaid facts,
the trial court proceeded afresh, in the
matter, in compliance of the directions
made by this court, on 18-04-2025.

10. The questions cropped up before
this court are in two folds :-

(1) That whether the charges can
be altered on an application moved by
either of the parties and secondly, at the
stage of framing of charges, what material
is to be looked into by the learned trial
court.

11. When this court examines that
whether on an application moved by either
of the parties, charges could be altered or
not, the content and intent of Section 216 of
the Cr.P.C., is necessarily to be gone into.
Section 216 of Cr.P.C. reads as under :-

216. Court may alter charge :-
(1) Any Court may alter or add to any
charge at any time before judgment is
pronounced.

(2) Every such alteration or
addition shall be read and explained to the
accused.

(3) If the alteration or addition to
a
charge
is
such
that
proceeding
immediately with the trial is not likely, in
the opinion of the Court, to prejudice the
accused in his defence or the prosecutor in
the conduct of the case, the Court may, in
its discretion, after such alteration or
addition has been made, proceed with the
trial as if the altered or added charge has
been the original charge.

(4) If the alteration or addition is
such that proceeding immediately with the
trial is likely, in the opinion of the Court, to
prejudice the accused or the prosecutor as
aforesaid, the Court may, either direct a
new trial or adjourn the trial for such
period as may be necessary.

(5) If the offence stated in the
altered or added charge is one for the
prosecution of which previous sanction is
necessary, the case shall not be proceeded
with until such sanction is obtained, unless
sanction has been already obtained for a
prosecution on the same facts as those on
18 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
which the altered or added charge is
founded.

12. From a bare reading of the
aforesaid provisions, it is abundantly clear
that the court is empowered to alter the
charge, which is apparent from the start
wordings of the provision, which says that
'Any court may alter or add to any charge
at
any
time
before
Judgment
is
pronounced' and further the aforesaid
provision emphasizes from reading of the
head-note (heading) of the provision, which
says that the 'Court may alter charge'. The
aforesaid provision is indicative of the
intent of the legislature that there is no such
provision that anyone other than the court,
can have a right to alter the charge.

13. Time and again, this issue has been
dealt with by the Hon'ble Apex Court and
recently, reiterating the view earlier taken
by it, this has been held in the case of
Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Vs Raj
Kumar Arora and Others, reported in 2025
SCC Online SC 819, in paragraph no. 144,
as under :-

144. The Court may alter or add
to any charge either upon its own motion
or on an application by the parties
concerned. Therefore, such a power can be
invoked by the Court suo moto as well. This
power under Section 216 CrPC is exclusive
to the concerned Court and no party can
seek such an addition or alteration of
charge as a matter of right by filing an
application. It would be the Trial Court
which must decide whether a proper
charge has been framed or not, at the
appropriate stage of the trial. On a
consideration of the broad probabilities of
the case, the total effect of the evidence and
documents adduced, the Trial Court must
satisfy itself that the exercise of power
under Section 216 is necessary. The
provision has been enacted with the
salutary object to ensure a fair and full
trial to the accused person(s) in each case.

14. From the abovesaid ratio, it is
abundantly clear that it has been a constant
view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the
court may alter or add any charge on it's
own or on an application moved by the
parties concerned, but, such powers can be
invoked by the court suo-moto, meaning
thereby that the power under section 216 of
Cr.P.C. is exclusive to the wisdom of the
court concerned and no party can claim the
alteration in the charges, as a matter of
right.

15. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of State of Rajasthan Vs Ashok Kumar
Kashyap, reported in (2021) 11 Supreme
Court Cases,191, has held in paragraph nos.
10,11 & 15 that at the stage of framing of
the charges or rejecting the application of
discharge, it is to be looked into that
whether prima-facie, a case has been made
out and whether the accused is required to
be further tried or not, thus, the mini trial is
not permitted. Paragraph nos. 10,11 & 15
of the Judgment are extracted as under :-

10. By the impugned judgment
[Ashok Kumar Kashyap v. State of
Rajasthan, 2018 SCC OnLine Raj 3468]
and order, the High Court in exercise of its
revisional jurisdiction has set aside the
order passed by the learned Special Judge
framing the charge against the accused
under Section 7 of the PC Act and
consequently has discharged the accused
for the said offence. What has been
weighed with the High Court while
discharging the accused is stated in paras
10 and 11 of the impugned judgment
[Ashok Kumar Kashyap v. State of
9 All. Sanoj Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
19
Rajasthan, 2018 SCC OnLine Raj 3468]
and
order,
which
are
reproduced
hereinabove.

11.While considering the legality
of the impugned judgment [Ashok Kumar
Kashyap v. State of Rajasthan, 2018 SCC
OnLine Raj 3468] and order passed by the
High Court, the law on the subject and few
decisions of this Court are required to be
referred to.

11.1. In P. Vijayan [P. Vijayan
v. State of Kerala, (2010) 2 SCC 398 :
(2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1488] , this Court
had an occasion to consider Section 227
CrPC What is required to be considered
at the time of framing of the charge
and/or
considering
the
discharge
application
has
been
considered
elaborately in the said decision. It is
observed and held that at the stage of
Section 227, the Judge has merely to sift
the evidence in order to find out whether
or not there is sufficient ground for
proceeding against the accused. It is
observed that in other words, the
sufficiency of grounds would take within
its fold the nature of the evidence
recorded by the police or the documents
produced before the court which ex facie
disclose
that
there
are
suspicious
circumstances against the accused so as
to frame a charge against him. It is
further observed that if the Judge comes
to a conclusion that there is sufficient
ground to proceed, he will frame a
charge under Section 228 CrPC, if not,
he will discharge the accused. It is
further observed that while exercising its
judicial mind to the facts of the case in
order to determine whether a case for
trial
has
been
made
out
by
the
prosecution, it is not necessary for the
court to enter into the pros and cons of
the matter or into a weighing and
balancing of evidence and probabilities
which is really the function of the court,
after the trial starts.

11.2. In the recent decision of
this Court in M.R. Hiremath [State of
Karnataka v. M.R. Hiremath, (2019) 7
SCC 515 : (2019) 3 SCC (Cri) 109 :
(2019) 2 SCC (L&S) 380] , one of us
(D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) speaking for the
Bench has observed and held in para 25
as under : (SCC p. 526)

"25. The High Court [M.R.
Hiremath v.State, 2017 SCC OnLine Kar
4970] ought to have been cognizant of the
fact that the trial court was dealing with an
application
for
discharge
under
the
provisions of Section 239 CrPC. The
parameters which govern the exercise of
this jurisdiction have found expression in
several decisions of this Court. It is a
settled principle of law that at the stage of
considering an application for discharge
the court must proceed on the assumption
that the material which has been brought
on the record by the prosecution is true and
evaluate the material in order to determine
whether the facts emerging from the
material, taken on its face value, disclose
the existence of the ingredients necessary
to constitute the offence. In State of
T.N.v.N. SureshRajan[State of T.N.v.N.
Suresh Rajan, (2014) 11 SCC 709 : (2014)
3 SCC (Cri) 529 : (2014) 2 SCC (L&S)
721] , adverting to the earlier decisions on
the subject, this Court held : (SCC pp. 72122, para 29)

'29. ... At this stage, probative
value of the materials has to be gone into
and the court is not expected to go deep
into the matter and hold that the materials
would not warrant a conviction. In our
20 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
opinion, what needs to be considered is
whether there is a ground for presuming
that the offence has been committed and
not whether a ground for convicting the
accused has been made out. To put it
differently, if the court thinks that the
accused might have committed the offence
on the basis of the materials on record on
its probative value, it can frame the
charge; though for conviction, the court
has to come to the conclusion that the
accused has committed the offence. The law
does not permit a mini trial at this stage.' "

15. As observed hereinabove, the
High Court was required to consider
whether a prima facie case has been made
out or not and whether the accused is
required to be further tried or not. At the
stage of framing of the charge and/or
considering the discharge application, the
mini trial is not permissible. At this stage, it
is to be noted that even as per Section 7 of
the PC Act, even an attempt constitutes an
offence. Therefore, the High Court has
erred and/or exceeded in virtually holding
a mini trial at the stage of discharge
application."

16. This court has also passed an order
on 09.05.2025, in Criminal Appeal No.
1014 of 2025, in the case of Radhey Lal Vs
State of U.P. and Another, wherein
paragraph no. 24, it has been held that the
claim for alteration in the charge, cannot be
raised as a matter of right, though, the
application can be moved for bringing the
omission or error in framing of the charges
before the learned trial court, but, it is the
exclusive domain of the learned trial court
to alter the charges.

17. Applying the aforesaid ratio to the
case in hand, it apt to say that the impugned
order dated 03-07-2025, reveals that the
learned trial court has gone into the records
of the case i.e. the Chargesheet, Chik
F.I.R., Tahrir, Injury Report, Inquest
Report including the post-mortem report,
Site plan and Case Diary etc. The nature of
injuries which are reported in the postmortem report has also been discussed and
alongwith that, the first information report
version has been co-related. Moreso, it is
observed by the learned trial court in it's
order dated 03-07-2025 that the application
for alteration of charges moved by the
applicant was not pressed orally and a note
was also made for not pressing the same
and there is no reason to disclose it, though
the same was not disclosed by the applicant
before the coordinate Bench of this court
while challenging the order dated 17-012025, but, after noticing the aforesaid, the
learned trial court proceeded in compliance
of the order dated 18-04-2025 passed in
application under section 482 Cr.P.C./528
of the B.N.S.S. No. 2533 of 2025 and while
considering the material available on
record, has passed the order, on 03-07-2025
and in this view of the matter, this court
does
not
find
any
illegality
or
erroneousness in the order impugned dated
03-07-2025.

18. Coming to the next issue that
while framing the charge, what material is
to be looked into and discussed by the
learned trial court, it is trite law on the
issue that it is expected from a trial Judge
to exercise his judicial mind to determine
that as to whether a case for trial has been
made out or not, and while undertaking
such proceedings, the court is not supposed
to hold a mini trial by marshalling the facts
and evidence on record. Infact, if the
material available before the court, gives
subjective satisfaction of existence of
prima-facie case of the alleged offence, it is
sufficient enough to proceed with the case.
9 All. Mohammad Irasad Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
21

19. Ergo, this court is of the
considered opinion that the order impugned
dated 03-07-2025, does not assail any
illegality or infirmity. Thus, there is no
merit in this application and consequently,
the application is hereby dismissed.

20. The trial court may proceed in
accordance with law.

21. Consigned to record.
---------
(2025) 9 ILRA 21
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.09.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN
MISHRA, J.

Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 27620 of 2025

Mohammad Irasad ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Manoj Kumar Mishra, Rahul Mishra

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Aditya Prasad Mishra, G.A., Vijay Mishra

Issue for Consideration
Whether the proceedings under Sections 420
and 120-B I.P.C., arising out of a dispute that is
"essentially of a civil nature", and where
"nothing in the FIR or the prosecution papers"
discloses deception or fraudulent inducement,
amount to an "abuse of the process of law" so
as to warrant quashing.

Headnotes
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - SS. 415, 420,
120-B - Cheating - Criminal Procedure -
Application Under Section 528 BNNS -
Quashing Of Proceedings - Where The
Dispute Relates To Title, Authority Of
Vendor, Earlier Sale Deeds, Entries In
Revenue Records And Nature Of Property
- Ingredients Not Made Out - FIR And
Material
Do
Not
Show
Any
"Representation
Much
Less
A
False
Representation"
Or
"Fraudulent
Or
Dishonest Inducement" By Applicant -
Informant Is Not Purchaser; Purchaser
(Kajal) Is A Co-Accused - Civil Dispute
Given Criminal Colour - Continuation Of
Proceedings Where Allegations Disclose
Only A Civil Dispute Constitutes "Abuse Of
The Process Of Law" - Quashing Under
Section 528 BNSS (482 Crpc).
Held: Matter is essentially of a civil nature -
Opposite party No. 2 has wrongly invoked the
jurisdiction - giving a criminal colour to a matter
that is essentially civil - No material to show
"any
representation
much
less
a
false
representation" or "fraudulent inducement" by
the applicant; informant is not purchaser;
purchaser herself is co-accused - Issues
involved - title, authority, subsistence of land -
are triable in a civil suit and not in a criminal
prosecution - No case of cheating under S.420
IPC made out - prosecution is nothing but an
abuse of the process of law - Application
allowed - proceedings in Case and order
quashed. (E-7)

Case Law Cited
V.Y. Jose and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Anr.,
AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 59; Hira Lal Hari Lal
Bhagwati v. CBI, (2003) 5 SCC 257; Vir
Prakash Sharma v. Anil Kumar Agarwal, (2007)
7 SCC 373; Md. Ibrahim and Ors. v. State of
Bihar and Anr., 2010 AIR SCW 405; Dr. Vimla
v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1963 SC 1572;
State of U.P. v. Ranjit Singh, (1999) 2 SCC
617; Rajiv Thapar and Ors. v. Madan Lal
Kapoor, AIR 2013 SC (Supp) 1056.

List of Acts
Bharatiya
Nagarik
Suraksha
Sanhita
(BNSS),2023; Indian Penal Code, 1860; Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973; Indian Contract Act,
1872.

List of Keywords
quashing further proceeding; sale deed; Power
of Attorney; civil nature; fraudulent or dishonest
intention; deception; abuse of the process of
law; no legal right or authority; criminal colour;
cheating; representation; inducement.