Allahabad High Court
Maulvi Shan Ahmad Alias Syed Shan Ahmad vs State Of U.P. And Another on 22 April, 2025
Author: Saurabh Srivastava
Bench: Saurabh Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:60724
Court No. - 74
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 6345 of 2025
Applicant :- Maulvi Shan Ahmad Alias Syed Shan Ahmad
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Mukesh Kumar Pandey,Sunil Vashisth
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.
1. Heard Sri Dilip Kumar, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Sunil Vashishth, learned counsel for applicant and learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as learned AGA appearing for the State.
2. This present application has been filed for seeking quashing of summoning order dated 04.12.2024 passed by learned ACJM, Ghazipur in Criminal Case No.51305 of 2024 (State Vs. Maulvi Shan Ahmad), arising out of Case Crime No.133 of 2024, under Sections 295-A, 509, 506, 354 IPC and Section 3/5(1) of U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, P.S. Bareser, District Ghazipur as well as entire criminal proceedings of the said case, pending the in the court of learned ACJM, Ghazipur.
3. Brief facts of the present case are that opposite party no.2 lodged an FIR against applicant alleging that applicant is a Maulvi and runs a darbar in Village Mata, District Ghazipur and in-laws of opposite party no.2 were under his influence who was also a regular visitor of her in-laws house. Applicant created mental pressure upon opposite party to follow the Islamic customs and also uttered abusive words against Hindu Gods and Goddesses. After registration of the FIR, inquiry was conducted which culminated into submission of chargesheet by the concerned Investigating Officer on dated 16.11.2024 whereupon vide order dated 04.12.2024, learned court concerned taken cognizance of offence and summoned the applicant which impugned the present petition.
4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of applicant submitted that on the basis of vague allegations, FIR was lodged belatedly wherein specific details about date, time and exact words allegedly used by applicant hurting religious sentiments, have not been mentioned. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that applicant and husband of informant have familial relations due to which, he visits in-laws house of informant and applicant did not attempt either directly or indirectly to promote religious conversion. It has also been submitted by learned Senior Counsel that without conducting proper and fair investigation as well as without collecting any substantial evidence against applicant, concerned Investigating Officer submitted chargesheet but without considering the said facts and without applying its judicial mind, learned court concerned taken cognizance over the said chargesheet and summoned the applicant vide order dated 04.12.2024 which is abuse of process of law and as such, same may be quashed.
5. Per contra, learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer as made in the application by way of submitting that the contentions, which are sought to be raised on behalf of applicant, would relate to disputed questions of fact, and would involve appreciation of evidence. It is 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.
6. After hearing the rival submissions extended by learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, this Court is of the opinion that at the stage of taking cognizance/summoning, the Magistrate is only required to record a prima facie opinion, based on the material on record, and is not expected to hold a mini trial or to examine the defence of the accused. In judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of S.W. Palanitkar and Others v. State of Bihar and Another; (2002) 1 SCC 241, it was held that the test which was required to be applied was whether there is "sufficient ground for proceeding" and not whether there is "sufficient ground for conviction". In the case of Nupur Talwar v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another; (2012) 11 SCC 465, it was reiterated that the limited purpose of consideration of material at the stage of issuing process being tentative as distinguished from the actual evidence produced during trial, the test to be applied at the stage was whether the material placed before the Magistrate was "sufficient for proceeding against the accused" and not "sufficient to prove and establish the guilt". At the stage of taking cognizance, a court's primary focus is to determine if a prima facie case exists, meaning whether there is sufficient evidence to suggest that an offense has been committed, and not to delve into the merits of the case or the evidence.
7. The aforementioned legal position has also been considered in a recent decision of this Court in the judgment dated 6.5.2024 passed in Matters under Article 227 no. 3254 of 2024 (Kailash and another vs. State of U.P. and another).
8. From the perusal of the material available on record and looking into the facts of the case, at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against applicant. All the submission made at the bar, relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of power conferred under Section 528 BNSS.
9. Accordingly, the prayer sought through the instant application, is refused.
10. Lastly, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of applicant submitted that liberty may be granted to applicant to surrender before the court concerned and apply for bail to which learned AGA has no objection.
11. In view of the aforesaid, if in case, applicant surrenders before the court concerned within a period of 30 days from today and applies for bail, his bail application shall be considered and decided by learned court concerned expeditiously in accordance with law laid down in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another (2022 SCC OnLine SC 825).
12. However, it is made clear that till 30 days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against applicant herein in pursuance of aforesaid case.
13. Accordingly, the present application stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 22.4.2025
Vivek Kr.
