# Sayem Yazdani v. State Of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2025) 7 ILRA 175
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-07-25
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 4169 of 2025
- **Bench:** Subhash Vidyarthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sayem-yazdani-v-state-of-u-p-anr-53615
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

applicant should be quashed under Section 482
176 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Cr.P.C./Section 528 BNSS, considering the
dispute alleged to be civil in nature, and no
direct allegations are made against the applicant
in the FIR.

HEADNOTES
Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section - 397, 482, -
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 406,
420,
504,
506,
-
Bharatiya
Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section - 528 -
Application U/section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 528
BNSS - for quashing the entire criminal
proceedings - FIR - lodged against six accused,
including the applicant, for duping flat buyers by
collecting money without delivering possession
and selling the same flat to multiple parties -
investigation - Charge-sheet - Applicant arguing
that all the allegations are against the coaccused and informant has taken recourse to
proceedings before the RERA and the applicant
cannot be prosecuted for a dispute which
essentially is of civil nature - Court finds that
though informant has approached the RERA for
redressal of grievance, however the accused
allegedly took money from multiple buyers for
flats they failed to deliver, despite RERA orders
for repayment remaining unfulfilled - allegations
have been established during investigation and
only thereafter a charge-sheet has been filed
against the applicant - Court held that prima
facie offences of cheating and criminal breach of
trust were made out from distinct actions -
consequently, the applicant has failed to
demonstrate that continuation
of criminal
proceedings would undermine the interests of
justice - hence, the facts presented do not
justify invoking the Court's inherent powers to
quash the proceedings - accordingly, application
is dismissed. (Para - 7, 12, 14, 15)
Appeal Dismissed. (E-11)

CASE LAW CITED
Priti Saraf v. State (NCT of Delhi) - (2021) 16
SCC 142, Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander -
(2012) 9 SCC 460, Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd.
Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another - (2024)
10 SCC 690, Rikhab Birani & Another Vs. State
of Uttar Pradesh & Another - 2025 SCC OnLine
SC 823.

LIST OF ACTS
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Indian Penal
Code,
1860;
Juvenile
Justice
Act,
1986;
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

LIST OF KEYWORDS
Quashing of proceedings - Criminal breach of
trust - Cheating - Real estate fraud - Organized
gang - distinct action - RERA complaint -
Inherent powers - Charge-sheet - Civil and
Criminal dispute - interest of justice.

CASE ARISING FROM
Misc. Case No. 35791/2025 (State of UP Vs.
Fahad Yajadani & others) in the court of
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, CBI (AP),
Lucknow on the basis of FIR No. 0189/2023
lodged at Police Station Mahanagar, Lucknow.

APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
Counsel for Appellant: - Sri Prabhat Kumar
Mishra,
Counsel for Respondent: - Sri Rajesh Kumar
Singh, AGA-1.

## Text

7 All. Sayem Yazdani Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
175
has been invoked, hence quashing of
offences under the said Act would have a
grave and substantial impact not just on the
parties involved, but also on the society at
large. As such the judgment in the case of
Anil Bhavarlal Jain (Supra) is not helpful to
the prosecution/C.B.I. This Court is of the
view that every case turns on its own facts.
Even one additional or different fact may
make a big difference between the
conclusion in two cases, because even a
single significant detail may alter the entire
aspect. Apart from this, it is also relevant to
mention that the judgment in the case of
N.S. Gnaneshwaran (Supra) is a later and
recent judgment dated May 28, 2025,
which is in consonance with the judgment
of the Apex Court in the case of K.Bharthi
Devi (Supra) and Tarina Sen (Supra) also.

11- Having heard the learned counsel
for the parties and going through the record
of the case, I find that it is not in dispute that
applicant is neither borrower nor guarantor.
The dispute regarding non payment of loan
(CC Limit) between the borrower and bank
involved predominantly had overtures of a
civil dispute, which has been settled under
One Time Settlement (OTS). Now after one
time settlement, the concerned bank has no
grievance. In view of the settlement between
the borrower and bank, the possibility of
conviction is remote and bleak. The case of
the
applicants
is
distinguishable
from
borrower and stands on better footing than
that of borrower. Hence after settlement as
noted above, continuation of the criminal
proceedings would put the applicant to grate
oppression and prejudice.

12-
Considering
the
facts
and
circumstances of the case in the light of
dictum and guidelines laid down by the
Apex Court in cases of K.Bharthi Devi
(Supra),Tarina Sen (Supra) and N.S.
Gnaneshwaran (Supra), this Court feels
that this is a fit case, where this Court can
exercise its inherent power to secure the
ends of justice.

13- As a fallout and consequence of
the above discussion, impugned charge
sheet dated 31.01.2024, cognizance /
summoning order dated 19.11.2024 and
criminal proceedings of aforesaid Case No.
05 of 2024 (C.B.I. vs. Anil Kumar Rawat
and Others) against the applicants namely
M/s ASM traxim Pvt. Ltd., Himanshu Garg
and Vipul Agarwal under Sections 120-B
read with 420 I.P.C. are hereby quashed.

14- This application under Section 528
of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023 is allowed in view of one time
settlement of borrower and bank as
mentioned above.
---------
(2025) 7 ILRA 175
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 25.07.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 4169 of 2025

Sayem Yazdani ...Applicant
Versus
State Of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Prabhat Kumar Mishra, Abdul Ahad, Jatin
Raheja, Shobhit Harsh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether the criminal proceedings against the
applicant should be quashed under Section 482
176 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Cr.P.C./Section 528 BNSS, considering the
dispute alleged to be civil in nature, and no
direct allegations are made against the applicant
in the FIR.

HEADNOTES
Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section - 397, 482, -
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 406,
420,
504,
506,
-
Bharatiya
Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section - 528 -
Application U/section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 528
BNSS - for quashing the entire criminal
proceedings - FIR - lodged against six accused,
including the applicant, for duping flat buyers by
collecting money without delivering possession
and selling the same flat to multiple parties -
investigation - Charge-sheet - Applicant arguing
that all the allegations are against the coaccused and informant has taken recourse to
proceedings before the RERA and the applicant
cannot be prosecuted for a dispute which
essentially is of civil nature - Court finds that
though informant has approached the RERA for
redressal of grievance, however the accused
allegedly took money from multiple buyers for
flats they failed to deliver, despite RERA orders
for repayment remaining unfulfilled - allegations
have been established during investigation and
only thereafter a charge-sheet has been filed
against the applicant - Court held that prima
facie offences of cheating and criminal breach of
trust were made out from distinct actions -
consequently, the applicant has failed to
demonstrate that continuation
of criminal
proceedings would undermine the interests of
justice - hence, the facts presented do not
justify invoking the Court's inherent powers to
quash the proceedings - accordingly, application
is dismissed. (Para - 7, 12, 14, 15)
Appeal Dismissed. (E-11)

CASE LAW CITED
Priti Saraf v. State (NCT of Delhi) - (2021) 16
SCC 142, Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander -
(2012) 9 SCC 460, Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd.
Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another - (2024)
10 SCC 690, Rikhab Birani & Another Vs. State
of Uttar Pradesh & Another - 2025 SCC OnLine
SC 823.

LIST OF ACTS
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Indian Penal
Code,
1860;
Juvenile
Justice
Act,
1986;
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

LIST OF KEYWORDS
Quashing of proceedings - Criminal breach of
trust - Cheating - Real estate fraud - Organized
gang - distinct action - RERA complaint -
Inherent powers - Charge-sheet - Civil and
Criminal dispute - interest of justice.

CASE ARISING FROM
Misc. Case No. 35791/2025 (State of UP Vs.
Fahad Yajadani & others) in the court of
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, CBI (AP),
Lucknow on the basis of FIR No. 0189/2023
lodged at Police Station Mahanagar, Lucknow.

APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
Counsel for Appellant: - Sri Prabhat Kumar
Mishra,
Counsel for Respondent: - Sri Rajesh Kumar
Singh, AGA-1.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

1. Heard Sri Prabhat Kumar Mishra,
the learned counsel for the applicant and
Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, the learned
A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the
record.

2. The instant application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 528 BNSS has
been filed seeking quashing of the entire
criminal proceedings of Criminal Misc.
Case No.35791/2025 (State of U.P. Vs.
Fahad Yajadani and others) in the Court of
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, C.B.I.
(A.P.), Lucknow, which arises out of FIR
No.0189/2023 under Sections 406, 420,
504 and 506 IPC lodged at Police Station
Mahanagar, District Lucknow, so far as it
relates to the applicant.

3. The aforesaid case was instituted on
the basis of an FIR lodged by the opposite
7 All. Sayem Yazdani Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
177
party no. 2 on 24.08.2023 against six
persons, including the applicant, stating
that she had entered into an agreement with
co-accused - Fahad Yajadani, builder of
Alaya Aftek Residency, Mahanagar for
purchase of a 3 BHK Flat No. H-208,
measuring 1675 sq. ft. She had paid
Rs.44,74,934/-
through
cheques
but
possession of the flat was not handed over
to her and later the flat was sold away to
one Uma Shanker. Subsequently, the same
flat was again sold to another person
Yuvraj Verma. The FIR states that several
other persons have also been duped by the
accused persons in similar manner by an
organized gang of Fahad Yajadani, in
which the other accused persons, including
the applicant, are involved. They allure the
persons for purchasing flats and thereafter
grab their money and do not hand over the
flats. The informant further stated that she
has taken a loan from ICICI Bank,
Hazratganj for purchasing the flat and that
she had filed a complaint before the RERA
also.

4. After investigation, initially a
charge
sheet
dated
01.08.2024
was
submitted
against
co-accused-Fahad
Yajadani and the investigation against the
other
accused
persons
continued.
Thereafter, another charge-sheet has been
submitted on 27.01.2025 against five
persons,
including
the
applicant,
for
offences under Sections 406, 420, 504 and
506 IPC.

5. Assailing validity of the chargesheet, the learned counsel for the applicant
has submitted that the FIR does not contain
any allegation against the applicant and all
the allegations are against co-accused
Fahad Yajadani. He has further submitted
that from the allegations leveled by the
informant, no case for trial of the applicant
is made out. He next submitted that the
dispute is essentially of civil nature
regarding which the FIR itself states that
the informant has taken recourse to
proceedings before the RERA and the
applicant cannot be prosecuted for a
dispute which essentially is of civil nature.
In support of this contention, the learned
counsel for the applicant has placed
reliance upon a judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court rendered in the case
reported in Rikhab Birani & Anr. Vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.: 2025 SCC
OnLine SC 823, wherein it has been held
that the offence of cheating is not made out
from a mere breach of contract and a mere
breach
of
contract
cannot
lead
to
prosecution of the accused person. In
Rikhab Birani (Supra), the Hon'ble
Supreme Court had examined the facts of
the case in detail and had concluded that
the ingredients of the offences were not
made out.

6. The learned counsel for the
applicant has also relied upon a judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of reported in Delhi Race Club (1940)
Ltd. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr:
(2024) 10 SCC 690, wherein it has been
held that a person cannot be tried for the
offences under Sections 406 and 420
simultaneously.

7. From the contents of the FIR, it
appears that the accused persons have taken
money from several persons for selling
away flats built by their company and they
have not handed over the flats to numerous
persons, including the applicant, after
receiving the amount of sale consideration.
The informant has approached the RERA
also for the same grievance. Although the
learned counsel for the applicant has
submitted that the fact that the informant
178 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
has approached the RERA for redressal of
grievance, fortifies his submission that the
dispute between the parties is essentially of
a civil nature, but the learned counsel for
the applicant has admitted that the amount
ordered by the RERA has not been paid to
the informant. He has submitted that there
are numerous orders against the accused
persons for payment of money and they are
not in a position to comply with the orders
and money has not been paid to the flatbuyers.

8. In Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh
Chander:, (2012) 9 SCC 460, the Hon'ble
Supreme
Court
referred
to
various
precedents on the point and enlisted the
following principles to be considered for
proper exercise of jurisdiction, particularly,
with regard to quashing of charge either in
exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397
or Section 482 of the Code or together, as
the case may be:

"27.1. Though there are no limits
of the powers of the Court under Section
482 of the Code but the more the power,
the more due care and caution is to be
exercised in invoking these powers. The
power of quashing criminal proceedings,
particularly, the charge framed in terms of
Section 228 of the Code should be
exercised
very
sparingly
and
with
circumspection and that too in the rarest
of rare cases.

27.2. The Court should apply the
test as to whether the uncontroverted
allegations as made from the record of the
case
and
the
documents
submitted
therewith prima facie establish the offence
or not. If the allegations are so patently
absurd and inherently improbable that no
prudent person can ever reach such a
conclusion and where the basic ingredients
of a criminal offence are not satisfied then
the Court may interfere.

27.3. The High Court should not
unduly
interfere.
No
meticulous
examination of the evidence is needed for
considering whether the case would end in
conviction or not at the stage of framing
of charge or quashing of charge.

27.4. Where the exercise of such
power is absolutely essential to prevent
patent miscarriage of justice and for
correcting some grave error that might be
committed by the subordinate courts even
in such cases, the High Court should be
loath to interfere, at the threshold, to
throttle the prosecution in exercise of its
inherent powers.

27.5. Where there is an express
legal bar enacted in any of the provisions
of the Code or any specific law in force to
the very initiation or institution and
continuance of such criminal proceedings,
such a bar is intended to provide specific
protection to an accused.

27.6. The Court has a duty to
balance the freedom of a person and the
right of the complainant or prosecution to
investigate and prosecute the offender.

27.7. The process of the court
cannot be permitted to be used for an
oblique or ultimate/ulterior purpose.

27.8. Where the allegations made
and as they appeared from the record and
documents
annexed
therewith
to
predominantly give rise and constitute a
"civil wrong" with no "element of
criminality" and does not satisfy the basic
ingredients of a criminal offence, the court
may be justified in quashing the charge.
7 All. Sayem Yazdani Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
179
Even in such cases, the court would not
embark upon the critical analysis of the
evidence.

27.9. Another very significant
caution that the courts have to observe is
that it cannot examine the facts, evidence
and materials on record to determine
whether there is sufficient material on the
basis of which the case would end in a
conviction;
the
court
is
concerned
primarily with the allegations taken as a
whole whether they will constitute an
offence and, if so, is it an abuse of the
process of court leading to injustice.

27.10. It is neither necessary nor
is the court called upon to hold a fullfledged enquiry or to appreciate evidence
collected by the investigating agencies to
find out whether it is a case of acquittal or
conviction.

27.11. Where allegations give
rise to a civil claim and also amount to an
offence, merely because a civil claim is
maintainable, does not mean that a
criminal complaint cannot be maintained.

27.12.
In
exercise
of
its
jurisdiction under Section 228 and/or
under Section 482, the Court cannot take
into consideration external materials given
by an accused for reaching the conclusion
that no offence was disclosed or that there
was possibility of his acquittal. The Court
has to consider the record and documents
annexed therewith by the prosecution.

27.13. Quashing of a charge is
an exception to the rule of continuous
prosecution. Where the offence is even
broadly satisfied, the Court should be
more inclined to permit continuation of
prosecution rather than its quashing at
that initial stage. The Court is not expected
to marshal the records with a view to
decide admissibility and reliability of the
documents or records but is an opinion
formed prima facie.

27.14. Where the charge-sheet,
report under Section 173(2) of the Code,
suffers from fundamental legal defects, the
Court may be well within its jurisdiction to
frame a charge.

27.15. Coupled with any or all of
the above, where the Court finds that it
would amount to abuse of process of the
Code or that the interest of justice favours,
otherwise it may quash the charge. The
power is to be exercised ex debito justitiae
i.e. to do real and substantial justice for
administration of which alone, the courts
exist.

[Ref. State of W.B v. Swapan
Kumar Guha [(1982) 1 SCC 561];
Madhavrao
Jiwajirao
Scindia
v.
Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre [(1988)
1
SCC
692];
Janata
Dal
v.
H.S.
Chowdhary [(1992) 4 SCC 305]; Rupan
Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill
[(1995) 6 SCC 194]; G. Sagar Suri v. State
of U.P. [(2000) 2 SCC 636]; Ajay Mitra v.
State of M.P. [(2003) 3 SCC 11 ]; Pepsi
Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate
[(1998) 5 SCC 749]; State of U.P. v. O.P.
Sharma [(1996) 7 SCC 705]; Ganesh
Narayan Hegde v. S. Bangarappa [(1995)
4 SCC 41]; Zandu Pharmaceutical Works
Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque [(2005) 1
SCC 122]; Medchl Chemicals & Pharma
(P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd. [(2000) 3 SCC
269]; Shakson Belthissor v. State of Kerala
[(2009) 14 SCC 466]; V.V.S. Rama Sharma
v. State of U.P. [(2009) 7 SCC 234];
Chunduru Siva Ram Krishna v. Peddi
Ravindra Babu [(2009) 11 SCC 203];
180 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Sheonandan Paswan v. State of Bihar
[(1987) 1 SCC 288]; State of Bihar v. P.P.
Sharma [1992 Supp (1) SCC 222]; Lalmuni
Devi v. State of Bihar [(2001) 2 SCC 17];
M. Krishnan v. Vijay Singh [(2001) 8 SCC
645]; Savita v. State of Rajasthan [(2005)
12 SCC 338] and S.M. Datta v. State of
Gujarat [(2001) 7 SCC 659] .]

27.16. These are the principles
which
individually
and
preferably
cumulatively (one or more) be taken into
consideration as precepts to exercise of
extraordinary and wide plenitude and
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code
by the High Court. Where the factual
foundation for an offence has been laid
down, the courts should be reluctant and
should
not
hasten
to
quash
the
proceedings even on the premise that one
or two ingredients have not been stated or
do not appear to be satisfied if there is
substantial
compliance
with
the
requirements of the offence."

(Emphasis added)

9. In Priti Saraf v. State (NCT of
Delhi): (2021) 16 SCC 142, it was held
that:-

"31. In the instant case, on a
careful
reading
of
the
complaint/FIR/charge-sheet, in our view, it
cannot be said that the complaint does not
disclose the commission of an offence. The
ingredients of the offences under Sections
406 and 420IPC cannot be said to be
absent on the basis of the allegations in the
complaint/FIR/charge-sheet. We would like
to add that whether the allegations in the
complaint are otherwise correct or not, has
to be decided on the basis of the evidence
to be led during the course of trial. Simply
because there is a remedy provided for
breach of contract or arbitral proceedings
initiated at the instance of the appellants,
that does not by itself clothe the court to
come to a conclusion that civil remedy is
the only remedy, and the initiation of
criminal proceedings, in any manner, will
be an abuse of the process of the court for
exercising inherent powers of the High
Court
under
Section
482CrPC
for
quashing such proceedings."

(Emphasis added)

10. The complainant alleges that the
applicant has committed offences of
criminal breach of trust and cheating and
dishonestly inducing delivery of property.
It would be appropriate to have a look as
the definitions of the offences, which are
being reproduced below:-

"405. Criminal breach of trust.-
Whoever, being in any manner entrusted
with property, or with any dominion over
property, dishonestly misappropriates or
converts to his own use that property, or
dishonestly uses or disposes of that
property in violation of any direction of law
prescribing the mode in which such trust is
to be discharged, or of any legal contract,
express or implied, which he has made
touching the discharge of such trust, or
wilfully suffers any other person so to do,
commits "criminal breach of trust".

* * *

415.
Cheating.-Whoever,
by
deceiving any person, fraudulently or
dishonestly induces the person so deceived
to deliver any property to any person, or to
consent that any person shall retain any
property, or intentionally induces the
person so deceived to do or omit to do
anything which he would not do or omit if
7 All. Sayem Yazdani Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
181
he were not so deceived, and which act or
omission causes or is likely to cause
damage or harm to that person in body,
mind, reputation or property, is said to
"cheat".

Explanation.-A
dishonest
concealment of facts is a deception within
the meaning of this section.

Illustrations...

* * *

420. Cheating and dishonestly
inducing delivery of property.- Whoever
cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the
person deceived to deliver any property to
any person, or to make, alter or destroy the
whole or any part of a valuable security, or
anything which is signed or sealed, and
which is capable of being converted into a
valuable security, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to seven years, and
shall also be liable to fine.

11.
The
FIR
alleges
that
the
complainant and several other persons had
paid money for purchasing flats in the
project of the accused persons, but none of
them were handed over the flats. The flat in
respect of which the accused persons had
taken money from the complainant, was
sold away to another person and thereafter
it was again sold away to yet another
person. I am of the view that the aforesaid
factual allegations prima facie make out the
commission of the offences of Criminal
breach of trust and cheating.

12. The material collected during
investigation has not been annexed with the
application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and
the learned Counsel for the applicant has
not submitted that there is no material to
support the allegations leveled in the FIR.
The allegations have been established
during investigation and only thereafter a
charge-sheet has been filed against the
applicant.

13. In Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd.
(Supra) it has been held that a person
cannot be tried for the offences under
Sections 406 and 420 simultaneously on
the same set of facts. However, it does not
hold that even if the offence of criminal
breach of trust and cheating arise of
different facts forming a part of a series of
events, the accused cannot be tried for both
the offence. In the present case, the offence
of criminal breach of trust is alleged to be
made out from the payment of sale
consideration of the flat by the complainant
and non-delivery of the flat to him. The
offence of cheating is prima facie made out
from the allegation that the accused persons
have sold away the same flat to three
persons. Thus, the offences under Section
406 and 420 IPC are made out from
different actions of the accused persons
and, in these circumstances, they can be
prosecuted for both the offences.

14. Section 482 Cr.P.C. recognizes the
inherent powers of the High Court to make
such orders as may be necessary to prevent
abuse of the process of any court or
otherwise to secure the ends of justice. This
power should not be exercised on mere
technicalities where the ends of justice
would be defeated by the exercise of this
power. The facts of the case, noted above,
prima facie, indicate that the accused
persons are collectively responsible for the
affairs of M/s Yajdan Constructions, which
had constructed Alaya Aftek Residency. In
spite
of
the
informant
having
paid
Rs.44,74,934/- for purchasing a flat, the flat
182 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
was not given to her and it was sold away
to some other person and thereafter it was
again sold to yet another person. In spite of
the informant having approached the
RERA and obtained an order in her
favaour, her money has not been paid to
her. The informant has alleged that similar
misdeeds have been committed against
numerous other flat-buyers and the learned
counsel for the applicant is not in a position
to dispute this assertion.

15. The aforesaid facts, besides prima
facie making out commission of cognizable
offences by the accused persons, do not in
any manner make out that continuance of
criminal proceedings against the applicant
would defeat the ends of justice and,
therefore, these facts do not warrant
exercise of this Court's inherent power to
quash the criminal proceedings against the
applicant.

16.
In
view
of
the
foregoing
discussions, the application is dismissed.
---------
(2025) 7 ILRA 182
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 22.07.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 5511 of 2024

Sangram Singh ...Applicant
Versus
State Of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Aseem Goswami, Azhar Ikram

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.
ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether the application under Section 482
Cr.P.C./528 B.N.S.S., 2023 for quashing the
proceedings in Criminal Case No.1172/2018 is
maintainable when an alternative remedy of
revision is available under the Code of Criminal
Procedure.

HEADNOTES
Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section - 482, - Indian
Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 406, -
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
- Section - 528 - Application under Section
482 Cr.P.C. - for quashing discharge order -
criminal proceeding - summoning order -
discharge application - impugned order -
application against discharge order - strong
preliminary
objection raised
by the AGA
regarding aavailability of a statutory remedy like
revision - citing Supreme Court judgments
including Vipin Sahni v. CBI and Mohit alias
Sonu v. State of U.P., court held that when a
statutory remedy like revision is available, the
inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
should not be invoked except in compelling
circumstances - hence, the applicant should
approached the revisional court by filing revision
- application disposed of, with direction to the
revisional court, the delay in filing revision may
be condoned, to decide the matter expeditiously
and no coercive action to be taken against the
92-year-old applicant if revision is filed within
ten days. (Para - 6, 7, 8)
Application Disposed of. (E-11)

CASE LAW CITED
Vipin Sahni & Another Vs. CBI (2024 (2) ACR
952 (SC) - Mohit alias Sonu v. State of U.P.
(2013) 7 SCC 789) - Prabhu Chawla v. State of
Rajasthan(MANU/SC/0979/2016)
-
Madhu
Limaye v. State of Maharashtra (1977) 4 SCC
551) - Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022) 10
SCC 733).
LIST OF ACTS
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) -
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
(B.N.S.S.) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

LIST OF KEYWORDS
Application under section 482 Cr.P.C. - Inherent
jurisdiction -- Discharge order - Revision - Nonbailable warrant - Condonation of delay -