Najim Khan And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 4893 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Najim Khan And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 11 February, 2025

Author: Manju Rani Chauhan

Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:20772
 
Court No. - 52
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 39206 of 2024
 

 
Applicant :- Najim Khan And Another
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Ravindra Kumar Mishra
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
 

1. Heard Mr. Ravindra Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The instant application has been filed for quashing of the charge sheet dated 08.06.2024 as well as cognizance order dated 22.08.2024 and entire proceeding of Case No.390 of 2024 (State Vs. Najim and another), arising out of Case Crime No.168 of 2024, under Sections 323, 498-A, 504, 506 I.P.C. & Section 3/4 D.P. Act & Section 3/4 of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, Police Station-Ganj, District-Rampur, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Rampur.

3. Brief facts of the case are; an FIR has been lodged on 18.05.2024 at 16:26 hours against the applicants who are husband and mother-in-law of opposite party no.2 with the allegations that marriage of opposite party no.2 was solemnized with the applicant no.1 and after passage of one year of marriage, husband and mother-in-law have started mentally and physically torturing the opposite party no.2 raising additional dowry demand of money and car. The husband applicant no.1 never maintained his wife. When opposite party no.2 requested money for her expenses, he threatened her for dire consequences.

4. About nine months before the lodging of the FIR, the applicants threw out the opposite party no.2 along with her children from the house and said that she would not enter the house unless she brings Rs.5,00,000/- and a Car. It has further been alleged that on 26.02.2024 at about 4 PM when opposite party no.2 was at her parents' place the applicant no.1 Najim and applicant no.2 Smt. Afsar Jahan reached there and raised the demand of Rs.5,00,000/- and one car and also assaulted, abused the opposite party no.2, pronouncing Talak thrice. The aforesaid incident of the applicants was witnessed by a number of persons.

5. After investigation charge sheet has been submitted on 22.08.2024 and the applicants have been summoned by order dated 08.06.2024, hence, the present application.

6. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that FIR has been lodged with false and frivolous allegations. Applicant no.1 had also lodged the case for bringing back her wife on 20.11.2023, despite that she did not return and has lodged the present case in order to exert pressure upon the applicants. He further submits that applicants have not caused any injury to opposite party no.2. He also submits that the writ Court referred the matter to the mediation centre as there are chances of amicable settlement between the parties but as the opposite party no.2 did not cooperate in the mediation proceedings, therefore, no settlement agreement has been arrived at between the parties and mediation proceedings have been dropped. There is no specific allegation against applicant no.2 who is 75 years old lady. Hence, no offence under the relevant section is made out against the applicants. Several other grounds have been raised on behalf of the applicants to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against them. The circumstances which, as per records, led to the false implication of the applicants have also been touched upon in the affidavit. He further submits that the summoning order as well as entire proceedings be quashed by this Court as the same is an abuse of the process of Court.

7. Learned AGA on the other hand submits that from the version of the FIR as well as statements of independent witnesses Asim Khan and Guddu, harassment of opposite party no.2 raising additional dowry is proved. He further submits that Asim Khan and Guddu, who are independent witnesses have specifically stated about the fact that opposite party no.2 was harassed by the applicants. All the other contentions raised by the applicants' counsel relate to disputed questions of fact. From perusal of the records, prima facie, it cannot be said at this stage that no offence has been committed by the applicants.

8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present application.

9. This Court finds that the averments made in the application as well as grounds taken call for adjudication on pure questions of fact which may adequately be adjudicated upon only by the trial court and while doing so even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court in this case. The issue whether it is appropriate for this Court being the Highest Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the charge-sheet, cognizance and the proceedings at this stage when the Magistrate has merely issued process against the applicants and the trial is yet to commence only on the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicants that present criminal case initiated by opposite party no.2 is not only malicious but also are abuse of the process of law has elaborately been discussed by the Apex Court in the following judgments:-

(i) R.P. Kapur Versus State of Punjab; AIR 1960 SC 866,

(ii) State of Haryana & Ors. Versus Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors.;1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335,

(iii) State of Bihar & Anr. Versus P.P. Sharma & Anr.; 1992 Supp (1) SCC 222,

(iv) Zandu Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd. & Ors. Versus Mohammad Shariful Haque & Anr.; 2005 (1) SCC 122,

(v) M. N. Ojha Vs. Alok Kumar Srivastava; 2009 (9) SCC 682,

(vi) Mohd. Allauddin Khan Vs. The State of Bihar & Others; 2019 0 Supreme (SC) 454,

(vii) Nallapareddy Sridhar Reddy Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.; 2020 0 Supreme (SC) 45,

(viii) Rajeev Kaurav Vs. Balasahab & Others; 2020 0 Supreme (SC) 143 and lastly

(ix) M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra; 2021 SCC Online SC 315.

10. In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not deem it proper, and therefore cannot be persuaded to have a pre-trial before the actual trial begins. A threadbare discussion of various facts and circumstances, as they emerge from the allegations made against the accused, is being purposely avoided by the Court for the reason, lest the same might cause any prejudice to either side during trial. But it shall suffice to observe that the perusal of the F.I.R. and the material collected by the Investigating Officer on the basis of which the charge sheet has been submitted makes out a prima facie case against the accused at this stage and there appear to be sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. I do not find any justification to quash the charge sheet or the proceedings against the applicants arising out of them as the case does not fall in any of the categories recognized by the Apex Court which may justify their quashing.

11. The prayer for quashing the impugned charge-sheet, cognizance/summoning order as well as the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case are refused, as I do not see any abuse of the court's process at this pre-trial stage.

12. The present application has no merit and is, accordingly, rejected.

Order Date :- 11.2.2025

Rahul.