Mohd. Aleem Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2025)

Mohd. Aleem Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 27-02-2025 rejecting the applicant's discharge application in Complaint No. 869/2019 and the order dated 15-09-2025 rejecting Criminal Revision No. 161/2025 should be quashed/set aside, and whether the further proceedings of the complaint and their operation should be stayed. +1 more

Court's answer

This court cannot weigh the evidence; weighing evidence and adjudicating the matter is for the trial court, so a trial is required; the present application is devoid of merit and is dismissed.

Ratio / Principle

At the discharge-application stage this court exercises only limited jurisdiction — confined to determining whether prima facie charges are made out.

Key takeaways

On reading the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC together with the material available on record, it cannot be said that no offense is made out against the applicant.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT (LUCKNOW BENCH), Court No. 16 — Application U/S 482 No. 10745 of 2025, Mohd. Aleem Khan v. State of U.P. & Anr. — dismissed by Brij Raj Singh, J., on 18 December 2025. The applicant, named third accused in proceedings arising from a 04-02-2015 section 156(3) CrPC application by complainant Abban against Ajaz, Mehrun Nisa alias Mayavati and the applicant (converted into a complaint case by order dated 21-07-2015; styled Abban v. Ajaz & Ors. — registered as Complaint No. 869/2019 in the prayers and as Complaint Case No. 2882 of 2016 in the narrative), saw his earlier 482 Petition No. 141 of 2023 against the summoning order disposed of with a direction to seek discharge. His discharge application was rejected on 27-02-2025 by the Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Bahraich, and Criminal Revision No. 161 of 2025 under Sections 397/399 CrPC met the same fate on 15-09-2025 before the Additional Sessions Judge-VIth, Bahraich. Although learned counsel relied on State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal, (1992) Supp (1) SCC 335, and urged that the matter was at most one of recovery of money not attracting section 406 IPC, the Court held that at the discharge stage its jurisdiction is limited to testing whether prima facie charges exist, that it cannot weigh the evidence, and that from the section 200/202 CrPC statements and the record it cannot be said that no offense is made out; a trial being necessary, the application was dismissed as devoid of merit.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10745 of 2025

Mohd. Aleem Khan

.....Applicant(s) Versus State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mohemmed Amir Naqvi, Abhishek Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 16

HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.

The applicant has filed this application with the following main prayers:

"I. Quash/set-aside impugned order dated 15-092025 passed by Ld. Court of Addl. Sessions JudgeVIth, Bahraich in Criminal Revision No. 161/2025 styled as Mohd. Aleem Khan Vs. State of U. P. & Anr. whereby criminal revision preferred against the dismissal of discharge application was rejected in most mechanical manner without application of mind. (Annexure No. 1),

II. Quash/set-aside impugned order dated 27-022025 passed by Ld. Court of Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Bahraich passed in Complaint No. 869/2019 styled as Abban Vs. Ajaz & Ors. whereby rejecting the discharge application in most mechanical manner

A482 No. 10745 of 2025

2

without application of mind. (Annexure No. 2),

IΠ. Stay the operation and implementation of impugned order dated 15-09-2025 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge-Vith, Bahraich in Criminal Revision No. 161/2025 styled as Mohd. Aleem Khan Vs. State of U. P. & Anr. as well as order dated 27-02-2025 passed by Ld. Court of Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Bahraich passed in Complaint No. 869/2019 styled as Abban Vs. Ajaz & Ors. during pendency of instant petition in the interest of justice, and

IV. Stay the further proceeding of Complaint No. 869/2019 styled as Abban Vs. Ajaz & Ors. pending before the Ld. Court of Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Bahraich during pendency of instant petition in the interest of justice.

It is case of the applicant that on 4-2-2015, one Abban, son of Ahmad Hassan, resident of Mohalla Nazirpura, PS Kotwali Nagar, district Bahraich, filed an application under section 156(3) before the learned court of Judicial Magistrate, Bahraich, against three named accused persons, namely, Ajaz, son of Munna; Mehrun Nisa Alias Mayavati, wife of Munna; and Mohammad Aleem Khan, son of Munna, which was registered as No. 167/12/15, Abban vs. Ejaz and others. Vide order dated 21/7/2015, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bahraich, directed the matter to be treated as a 'complaint case'. In pursuance thereof, Complaint Case No. 2882 of 2016, Abban versus Ajaz and others, PS Kotwali Nagar, District Bahraich, has been registered. On 3/11/2015, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bahraich, examined the complainant and recorded his statement under section 200 CrPC, and statements of witnesses, namely, Ladan and Chhabban, were also recorded under section 202 CrPC. Thereafter, summons were issued on

A482 No. 10745 of 2025

3

14/11/2017. The applicant challenged the summoning order by filing 482 petition No. 141 of 2023. The application was disposed of with a direction that the applicant may file a discharge application and the same will be decided. In pursuance of the direction issued by the court, the discharge application was filed by the applicant, however, the same was rejected by the impugned order dated 27.02.2025. Against the order dated 27.02.2025 the applicant filed Criminal Revision under Section 397, read with Section 399 CrPC, bearing Criminal Revision No. 161 of 2025 before the court of the learned Sessions Judge, which was also rejected, hence, this application has been filed. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the cognizance order is time-barred.

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the case. He has further submitted that at the most, it is a case of recovery of money, for which a suit will lie, and criminal proceedings cannot be launched. It is further submitted that an offense under section 406 IPC is not made out. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has relied on a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of State Of Haryana And Ors vs Ch. Bhajan Lal And Ors., dt. 21 November, 1990, (1992) Supp (1) SCC 335 .

Learned A.G.A. has submitted that the learned court below has passed the summoning order after considering the statements of the complainant and witnesses recorded under Sections 200 and 202, Cr.P.C. and revision preferred by the applicant against the summoning order has been rejected. The learned A.G.A. has further submitted that this court is not to hold trial, which is to be done by the trial court after adducing of evidence by the parties. The order is just and legal, warrants no interference. The application is liable to be dismissed.

After going through the record, I find that the summoning order, which was challenged by the applicant, was not

A482 No. 10745 of 2025

4

entertained. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a discharge application which has been rejected. While hearing the discharge application, this court has got limited jurisdiction, prima facie, charges are made or not. After reading out the statements recorded under Section 200 and 202 CrPC, as well as the material available on record, it cannot be said that an offense is not made out. This court cannot weigh the evidence. Certainly, a trial is required for that. The present application is devoid of merit, and the same is hereby dismissed .

December 18, 2025 A.Nigam

(Brij Raj Singh,J.)

Digitally signed by :- ANUJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench