Dismissed¶¶14

Mohammad Osama and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC25 Apr 2025A482/844/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing application dismissed; WhatsApp status FIR under Sections 469, 505, 120B IPC and Section 66 IT Act, Case Crime no. 620 of 2020, PSTiwaripur, District Gorakhpur; SIM card/naming of applicant no. 2 during investigation; allegation of misuse of mobile phone held to be a factual issue for trial; inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to be exercised sparingly; summoning order dated 21.04.2023 by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gorakhpur and proceeding of Case Crime no. 36860 of 2023 not interfered with.

What did the court decide?

Prima facie offence is made out against the applicants. ¶¶11

Mohammad Osama and Another vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether the charge sheet dated 29.01.2021 in Case Crime no. 620 of 2020, the summoning order dated 21.04.2023 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gorakhpur, and the entire proceeding of Case Crime no. 36860 of 2023 arising out of Case Crime no. 620 of 2020 should be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶¶7

Court's answer

Prima facie offence is made out against the applicants.

¶¶11

Ratio / Principle

The assertion that opposite party no. 2 misused the applicant's mobile phone raises factual issues requiring proper adjudication by the trial court based on evidence, and cannot be conclusively determined in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶¶12

Key takeaways

The inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C are to be exercised sparingly and with caution, primarily to prevent abuse of the process of the court or to secure the ends of justice.ratio¶¶13
No sufficient ground has been made out to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.ratio¶¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Saurabh Srivastava, J.) dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by Mohammad Osama and another seeking quashing of the charge sheet dated 29.01.2021 in Case Crime no. 620 of 2020 (PSTiwaripur, District Gorakhpur) under Sections 469, 505, 120B IPC and 66 IT Act, the summoning order dated 21.04.2023 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gorakhpur, and the entire proceeding of Case Crime no. 36860 of 2023. The FIR arose from an alleged WhatsApp status uploaded against the Hindu religion; applicant no. 2 was named during investigation as the person in whose name the SIM card was issued. The Court held that a prima facie offence was made out; that the claim that opposite party no. 2 had misused the applicant's mobile phone was a factual issue requiring adjudication by the trial court on evidence; and that, the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. being exercisable sparingly and with caution, no sufficient ground existed to invoke the Court's extraordinary jurisdiction.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:65189

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 844 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Mohammad Osama And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Syed Sajjad Husain Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶7

Present application has been preferred with the prayer to quash the charge sheet dated 29.01.2021 submitted in Case Crime no. 620 of 2020 under sections 469, 505, 120B IPC and 66 IT Act, PSTiwaripur, District Gorakhpur and summoning order dated 21.04.2023 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gorakhpur as well as quash the entire proceeding of Case Crime no. 36860 of 2023 arising out of Case Crime no. 620 of 2020.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that opposite party no. 2 lodged present FIR against the applicant no. 1 over the allegation that a Whatsapp status has been uploaded by applicant no. 1 through his mobile phone and the said post was against the Hindu religion which could disturb the social harmony and peace. Applicant no. 2 was later on named during investigation on the ground that the SIM card which was being used in mobile phone of applicant no. 1 has been issued in the name of applicant no. 2.

¶9

It is contended by learned counsel for applicants that applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case. In fact opposite party no. 2 has borrowed the mobile of applicant no. 1 and he himself posted the alleged status. Applicants have no criminal history to their credit. The present FIR is glaring example of misuse of process of law and deserves to be quashed along with entire proceeding.

¶10

Per contra, learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer sought through the instant application.

¶11

After hearing the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, it is observed that prima facie offence is made out against the applicants. The assertions of

¶12

misuse of applicant's mobile phone by opposite party no. 2 are factual issues that requires proper adjudication by the trial court based on evidence and cannot be conclusively determined in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶13

It is well settled that the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C are to be exercised sparingly and with caution, primarily to prevent abuse of the process of the court or to secure the ends of justice. In the instant case, no sufficient ground have been made out to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶14

In view of the foregoing, the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed .

¶15

Order Date :- 25.4.2025 Shaswat

¶16

Digitally signed by :- SHASWAT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mohammad Osama and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Osama and Another 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

Smt. Sunita and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Vidya Kumari and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Roshani Singh and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rampal Patel vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Irshad and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Abhijeet Yadav Alias Juthan vs State of U.P. and 3 Others