Dismissed¶16

Nafisul Hasan @ Nafisul Hasan Khan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC18 Apr 2025A482/3154/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; Alok Mathur J.; Application U/S 482 No. 3154 of 2025; Nafisul Hasan @ Nafisul Hasan Khan; summoning order 23.7.2024; Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-III Lucknow; criminal complaint No.24515 of 2023; Parvez Khaliq; Section 324 IPC; Section 324 BNSS; Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.; Sections 200/202 witness statements; Saranya v. Bharathi (2021) 8 SCC 583; Satender Kumar Antil bail liberty; petition dismissed 18.4.2025.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; however, liberty granted to the applicant (Nafisul Hasan @ Nafisul Hasan Khan) to file a bail application before the court below within twenty days, which is to be decided expeditiously in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil (supra). ¶16

Nafisul Hasan @ Nafisul Hasan Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether the present petition (Application U/S 482 No. 3154 of 2025) against the summoning order dated 23.7.2024 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-IIIrd, Lucknow in criminal complaint No.24515 of 2023 should be allowed. +3 more

¶8

Court's answer

On perusal of the records, the trial court duly considered the averments in the complainant's application, the statements of witnesses recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and the documentary evidence, and correctly concluded that a prima facie case of commission of offence under Section 324 IPC was made out against the opposite parties including the petitioner, warranting issuance of summons to face trial.

¶13

Ratio / Principle

In view of the foregoing (including the stance reiterated by the Apex Court in Saranya v. Bharathi on appreciation of evidence while deciding a section 482 Cr.P.C. application), the petition lacks merit and is dismissed.

¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench (Alok Mathur, J.) | Application U/S 482 No. 3154 of 2025 | Neutral Citation 2025:AHC-LKO:22129 | Decided 18.4.2025. Applicant Nafisul Hasan @ Nafisul Hasan Khan challenged the summoning order dated 23.7.2024 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-IIIrd, Lucknow in criminal complaint No.24515 of 2023 (Parvez Khaliq v. Nafisul Hasan and others). The complaint arose from a Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. application dated 30.11.2022 alleging forged sale deeds and an assault on 18.11.2022 in which the complainant was hit with the butt of a pistol; the trial court summoned the applicant under Section 324 IPC after considering statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. The applicant argued the injuries fell outside Section 324 IPC, that medical examination 15 km away cast doubt, and that summons issued after 1.7.2023 ought to have been preceded by notices under the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Samhita. Relying on the standard laid down in Saranya v. Bharathi, (2021) 8 SCC 583 (quoting Deepak, Amit Kapoor, Fatehkaran Mehdu and Chitresh Kumar Chopra) that evidence is not to be appreciated at this stage, the court held the trial court had duly found a prima facie case under Section 324 IPC and dismissed the petition, granting liberty to seek bail within twenty days per the law in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, SLP (Cri) No. 5191 of 2021 (order dated 7.10.2021).

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:22129

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3154 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Nafisul Hasan @ Nafisul Hasan Khan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Lalit Kishore Pandey,Pawan Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶7

Hear Sri Lalit Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and the Additional Government Advocate on behalf of the State.

¶8

Present petition has been filed against the summoning order dated 23.7.2024 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate - IIIrd, Room No.26, Lucknow in criminal complaint No.24515 of 2023 (Parvez Khaliq Vs. Nafisul Hasan and others ) under Section 324 of BNSS, relating to police station Bijnor, District Lucknow .

¶9

It has been stated that opposite party No.2/complainant moved an application on 30.11.2022 under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. before Chief Judicial Magistrate III, Lucknow against the applicant and others stating that he had on 29.11.2006 purchased a land of khasra No.1431 Sa, area 0.759 hectare situated i Village Bijnor, Tehsil Sarojini Nagar, District Lucknow from the present applicant of his whole share but as the property of the complainant is adjacent to the property of the applicant taking benefit of this the applicant has done many forged sale deeds and sold out much more area than the area of his actual share of land khasra No.1438 Sa but did not give them the possessions of the same. It is further stated that the applicant along with four others came to the temporary residence of the complainant situated on part of land of khasra No.1431 sa at 9.30 on 18.11.2022 and started to take illegal possession of the share of the property of the complainant and when the complainant resisted the said attempt he was hit at

¶10

head by the applicant by butt of the country made pistol and was also threatened of dire consequences and abused. Thereafter, the complainant got himself medically examined. It was also stated that the applicant is a person of criminal antecedents upon whom several criminal cases are registered. When the police refused to register his FIR he made aforesaid application. Upon the said application the trial court issued summoning order on 23.7.2024 against the applicant under Section 324 IPC relating to police station Bijnor.

¶11

It has been submitted on behalf of the applicant that as the land of the applicant and opposite party No.2 is adjacent to each other there are some dispute regarding boundary. It has been stated that the witnesses have deposed in a cursory and uniformly and the opposite party No.2 was medically examined at a distance of 15 kilometers from the place of occurrence which makes it doubtful and also that the injuries reported in the said medical report do not come within the purview of Section 324 IPC. It is further submitted that the impugned summoning order has been issued on 23.7.2024 while at that time the provisions of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Samhita had come into effect on 1.7.2023 according to which before issuing summoning order notices are to be issued to the respondents of the complaint but by not doing so the trial court has committed manifest error of law. Lastly, it has been submitted that there is no cogent and credible evidence or statement of witnesses available on record against the applicant so as to implicate him in the present case.

¶12

Learned A.G.A., on the other hand, has supported the prosecution case and prayed for dismissal of the present petition.

¶13

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, it is noticed that the trial court has duly considered the averments made in application of the complainant, the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. as well as the documentary evidence and came to the conclusion that prima facie case of commission of offence under Section 324 of IPC is made out against the opposite parties including the present petitioner and accordingly issued summons to them to face trial.

¶14

In the case of Saranya v. Bharathi, (2021) 8 SCC 583, the Apex court has reiterated the stance to be taken by the High Courts with regard to appreciation of evidence while deciding application under section 482 Cr.P.C.. The Relevant paragraph is as under:

¶15

“ 11. In Deepak [State of M.P. v. Deepak, (2019) 13 SCC 62 : (2019) 4 SCC (Cri) 521] , to which one of us (Dr D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) is the author, after considering the other binding decisions of this Court on the point, namely, Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander [Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 687 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 986] , State of Rajasthan v. Fatehkaran Mehdu [State of Rajasthan v. Fatehkaran Mehdu, (2017) 3 SCC 198 : (2017) 2 SCC (Cri) 40 : (2017) 1 SCC (L&S) 545] , and Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (NCT of Delhi) [Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2009) 16 SCC 605 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 367] , it is observed and held that at the stage of framing of charges, the Court has to consider the material only with a view to find out if there is a ground for “presuming” that the accused had committed the offence. It is observed and held that at that stage, the High Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom, taken at their face value, disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence or offences. It is further observed and held that at this stage the High Court is not required to appreciate the evidence on record and consider the allegations on merits and to find out on the basis of the evidence recorded the accused chargesheeted or against whom the charge is framed is likely to be convicted or not.”

¶16

In view of the above, the petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed . However, liberty is granted to the appellant to file bail application in view of law laid by Supreme Court in order dated 7.10.2021 passed in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Cri) No.5191 of 2021 Satender Kumar Antil versus Central Bureau of Investigation and another .

¶17

In case such bail application is filed by the applicant namely, Nafisul Hasan @ Nafisul Hasan Khan within twenty days' from today before the court below, the same be decided expeditiously in view of the law laid by by Supreme Court in Satender

Antil

(supra).

Kumar

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶22

Order Date :- 18.4.2025 RKM.

¶23

Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Nafisul Hasan @ Nafisul Hasan Khan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nafisul Hasan @ Nafisul Hasan Khan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Naseem Ahmad Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Ministry of Home Affairs Lko. and Another

Satish Chandra Vs Pawan Kumar and Another

Deeleep Chandra Vs Pawan Kumar and Another

Kalveer @ Brahmyuman and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Saurabh Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Satish Kumar Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. U.P. and 2 Others