Habib @ Habib Khan and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC20 May 2025A482/10126/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing application; challenge to bailable warrant, cognizance and summons; charge sheet under Sections 147 and 323 IPC; FIR dated 13.3.2024, P.S. Mohammadi, District Kheri (Lakhimpur Kheri); statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C.; interim stay of criminal proceedings till next date; notice to respondent no. 2 (complainant); alleged abuse of process; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; Manish Kumar, J.; interim protection pending consideration.

What did the court decide?

Interim relief: notice issued to respondent no. 2 (steps to be taken within a week) and proceedings of Case Crime No.159/2024 stayed till the next date of listing; matter listed in the 4th week of July, 2025, with the quashing question left for future consideration. ¶¶19

Habib @ Habib Khan and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned orders dated 24.06.2024 and 05.05.2024 (issuing bailable warrant against the applicants in Case Crime No.159/2024, Sections 147 and 323 IPC, P.S. Mohammadi, District Kheri), along with consequential orders, should be quashed to prevent abuse of the process of the court.

¶¶7

Court's answer

The matter requires consideration; notice has been issued to respondent no. 2, with steps to be taken within a week.

¶¶16

Ratio / Principle

Till the next date of listing (case listed in the 4th week of July, 2025), the proceedings of Case Crime No.159/2024, U/S 147, 323 of IPC, P.S. Mohammadi, District Kheri shall remain stayed.

¶¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench (Manish Kumar, J.), order dated 20.5.2025 in Application U/S 482 No. - 10126 of 2024: Applicants Habib @ Habib Khan and 3 others sought quashing of the orders dated 24.06.2024 and 05.05.2024 of the Civil Judge Senior Division (F.T.C.)/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lakhimpur Kheri issuing a bailable warrant against them in Case Crime No.159/2024, U/S 147, 323 IPC, P.S. Mohammadi, District Kheri, contending that the FIR dated 13.3.2024 (lodged by respondent no. 2 against Salman Khan) did not name them, that their names surfaced for the first time in statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., and that a charge sheet was thereafter filed under Sections 147 and 323 IPC with cognizance taken and summons issued. Held: the matter requires consideration — notice issued to respondent no. 2 with steps to be taken within a week; case listed in the 4th week of July, 2025; and till the next date of listing, the proceedings of Case Crime No.159/2024 shall remain stayed. No final view expressed on quashing.

¶1

Court No. - 14

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10126 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Habib @ Habib Khan And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kapil Gupta,Anand Mishra,Arjun Verma,Rohit Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Ms. Tanvi Jain, learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused the record.

¶6

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the following main reliefs:

¶7

"Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 24.06.2024 and 05.05.2024 along with other consequential orders passed by Learned Civil Judge Senior Division (F.T.C.)/ Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lakhimpur, Kheri by which Learned Court below has issued Bailable Warrant against the applicant in Case Crime No.159/2024, U/S- 147, 323 of IPC, P.S. Mohammadi, District- Kheri and prevent the abuse the process of Court in order to secure the end of justice."

¶8

The brief facts of the case are that an FIR dated 13.3.2024 has been lodged by the respondent no. 2 against the named accused person Salman Khan alleging therein that the accused Salman Khan enticed her and took her from her parental home (Maika) and started living with her in a rented accommodation in Mohammadi. The accused Salman Khan has got married on 7.3.2024 and deceived the complainant.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that there is no injury report or medical evidence and Section 147 IPC is also not applicable in the present case. The names of the applicants had surfaced for the first time in the statements of the complainant recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and the police has also filed the charge sheet against the applicants under Sections 147 and 323 IPC. The court concerned has taken cognizance and issued summons against the applicants without application of mind and feeling aggrieved by the same, the present application has been filed.

¶10

It is further submitted that it is an admitted case of the

¶11

complainant that she knew accused Salman Khan since 2016 and she were having conversation with him on telephone due to which her husband left her and thereafter she had started living with accused Salman Khan in a rented accommodation. It has also been stated by the complainant that on the pretext of promise of marriage, he had outraged her modesty for more than eight years.

¶12

It is further submitted that when marriage of accused Salman Khan, who is the son of the applicant nos. 1 and 2 and brother of applicant nos. 3 and 4, has been settled, the complainant was pressurizing him to get marry with her knowing completely that she is legally wedded wife of Mashan and after the marriage of accused Salman Khan, she has lodged an FIR against accused Salman Khan and when the accused Salman Khan was not come under her pressure then in her statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. she has given the names of the applicants by alleging some incident of 8.3.2024 which had never ever occurred.

¶13

It is further submitted that the applicants are innocent and they have nothing to do with the relationship of his son with the respondent no. 2. As per the version of complainant, they were living together for the last eight years and due to this criminal case, it is very difficult for the applicant nos. 1 and 2 to settle the marriage of their daughters i.e. applicant nos. 3 and 4.

¶14