Dismissed

Mohammad Azam v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC4 Dec 2025/9494/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant sought quashing of a charge sheet and summoning order in a dowry cruelty case, alleging false implication and retaliation. The Court, noting the filing of a charge sheet after investigation and the admission of solemnizing a Nikah, refused to conduct a mini-trial. The application was dismissed.

What the court decided

AI extract

Mohammad Azam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9494 of 2025

¶3

Mohammad Azam

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ram Lakhan Vishwakarma, Chandrashekhar Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Shujat Kidwai, Tahiruzzama

¶6

Court No. - 14

¶7

HON'BLE RAJEEV SINGH, J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶9

This application has been filed for quashing the charge sheet dated 28.12.2023 as well as summoning order dated 01.07.2024 passed in Criminal Case No. 7154 of 2024, arising out of F.I.R. No. 314 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 323 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Jalalpur, District Ambedkar Nagar.

¶10

In pursuance of the earlier order dated 27.11.2025, applicant as well as private respondent are present before this Court. However, as respondent no. 2 is reluctant to join the mediation proceedings, on the request of the learned counsel for both the parties, the matter is being decided on merits.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that a complaint case bearing No. 1207 of 2022 was filed by the mother of the applicant against the private respondent and her family members, in which, summoning order was also passed. However, respondent no. 2 and other accused persons were enlarged on bail. Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that in retaliation to the same, the F.I.R. of the case in

¶12

A482 No. 9494 of 2025

¶13

¶14

question has been lodged only with the intention to make pressure on the applicant's side. It is, thus, submitted that the indulgence of this Court is necessary and the impugned proceedings may be quashed.

¶15

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant vehemently oppose the prayer of the applicant and submit that mini trial of the case cannot be conducted in the present proceedings. Relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Muskan Vs. Ishan Khan & Ors. (Criminal Appeal No. 4752 of 2025), learned counsel for the opposite parties submit that the no interference is required in the matter and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶16

Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A., learned counsel for the complainant and going through the contents of the application, F.I.R. as well as other relevant documents, it is evident that after detail investigation, charge sheet was filed by the Investigating Officer, on which, cognizance has been taken by the trial court. It is also admitted by the applicant, who is present before this Court, that he solemnized Nikah with another lady, namely, Gudiya Parveen. Admittedly, mini trial of the case cannot be conducted in these summary proceedings.

¶17

In view of above facts and circumstances, the applicant is dismissed.

¶18

However, the trial court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously in accordance with law.

¶19

(Rajeev Singh,J.)

¶20

December 4, 2025 VKS

¶21

Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mohammad Azam v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Mohammad Azam v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Nasir Ali Siddiqui Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Ajay Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Ramesh Chandra Gupta and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Mitesh Prasad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and Another

Surya Prasad Chaudhry Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and Another

Hargovind Bhargava vs State of U.P. through Principal Secretary Home and another