Dismissed¶¶13

Kalimun v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC11 Aug 2025A482/41971/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court; Application U/S 482 No. 41971 of 2024 filed u/s 528 BNSS; Kalimun v. State of U.P. and Another; Rakesh Yadav; Manoj Gautam A.G.A.; quashing of summoning order dated 27.06.2019; Sessions Trial No. 1125 of 2019 (State Vs. Jauhar & others); Case Crime No. 61 of 2019; Section 306 IPC; Sections 498-A and 302 IPC FIR; charge sheet under S. 306 IPC; cognizance-stage prima facie test; no detailed analysis of investigation material at cognizance; S. 161 Cr.P.C. witness statements; P.S. Purandarpur; Chief Judicial Magistrate Maharajganj; application dismissed; Jitendra Kumar Sinha J.; 12.8.2025; neutral citation 2025:AHC:137035.

What did the court decide?

It is well-settled law that at the stage of taking cognizance, detailed analysis of the materials collected during investigation is not permissible. ¶¶10

Kalimun Vs State of U.P. and Another — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶13

Issue for consideration

Whether the summoning order dated 27.06.2019 in Sessions Trial No.- 1125 of 2019 (State Vs. Jauhar & others), arising out of Case Crime No.- 61 of 2019 under Sections 306 I.P.C., should be quashed under Section 528 B.N.S.S. on the applicant's contention that investigation disclosed no evidence against her. +1 more

¶¶7

Court's answer

Having perused the statements of the witnesses recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (copies annexed with the application), the court found no fit case for quashing the impugned summoning order.

¶¶12

Ratio / Principle

It is well-settled law that at the stage of taking cognizance, detailed analysis of the materials collected during investigation is not permissible.

¶¶10

Key takeaways

At the stage of taking cognizance, it is to be seen only whether a prima facie case is made out from the materials collected during investigation.ratio¶¶10

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Jitendra Kumar Sinha, J.; order dated 12.8.2025): Application u/s 528 of B.N.S.S. No. 41971 of 2024 by Kalimun seeking quashal of the summoning order dated 27.06.2019 in Sessions Trial No.- 1125 of 2019 (State Vs. Jauhar & others), arising out of Case Crime No.- 61 of 2019 under Sections 306 I.P.C., P.S. Purandarpur, District Maharajganj, pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Maharajganj. FIR was initially lodged under Sections 498-A and 302 of the I.P.C.; after investigation the charge sheet was submitted under Section 306 of the I.P.C. Counsel contended no evidence was found against the applicant; the learned A.G.A. supported the impugned order. Court held it is well-settled law that at the stage of taking cognizance detailed analysis of materials collected during investigation is not permissible, and only whether a prima facie case is made out is to be seen; having perused the witness statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. annexed with the application, it found no fit case for quashing the order impugned. Application dismissed.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:137035

¶2

Court No. - 89

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 41971 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Kalimun Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Rakesh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Manoj Gautam, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

The present application u/s 528 of B.N.S.S. has been filed with prayer to quash the summoning order dated 27.06.2019 in Sessions Trial No.- 1125 of 2019 (State Vs. Jauhar & others) arising out of Case Crime No.- 61 of 2019 under Sections 306 I.P.C., P.SPurandarpur, District- Maharajganj pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Maharajganj.

¶8

It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the first information report was lodged under Sections 498-A and 302 of the I.P.C. but after investigation charge sheet has been submitted under Section 306 of the I.P.C. He further submits that the applicant is lady and suffering from medical problem of spine. He further contended that during investigation no evidence has been found against the applicant regarding offence under Section 306 of I.P.C.

¶9

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has supported the order impugned and has submitted that during investigation, Investigating Officer has found sufficient evidence against applicant for the commission of offence under Section 306 I.P.C. He further submits that the detailed analysis of the evidence collected during investigation is not permissible at the stage of the taking cognizance of offence.

¶10

Initially, the first information report was lodged under Sections 498-A,302 of I.P.C. and after investigation the charge sheet has been submitted under Section 306 of I.P.C. It is well settled law that at the state of taking cognizance detailed analysis of the materials collected during investigation is not permissible. At the stage of taking cognizance it is to be seen whether prima facie case

¶11

is made out from the materials collected during investigation.

¶12

I have perused the statements of the witnesses recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the copies of which are annexed with the application. I do not find a fit case for quashing the order impugned.

¶13

In view of above, the application is dismissed .

¶14

Order Date :- 12.8.2025 Virendra

¶15

Digitally signed by :- VIRENDRA KUMAR BHARTEEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Kalimun v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kalimun v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases